Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES (IMMIGRANTS)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations how many persons emigrated from the United Kingdom to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, respectively, in the years 1953, 1954 and 1955.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Commander Allan Noble): As the reply contains a number of figures, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Johnson: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether the figures generally show an increase or a decrease?

Commander Noble: When my hon. Friend studies the figures, I do not think that he will find them at all unsatisfactory.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the figures include figures of such emigrants who transferred from one Colony or Dominion to another; those who settled and those who returned to this country? Is the Minister aware that the first set of figures would be useless without the second set?

Commander Noble: The figures that I shall circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT cover emigrants who left this country by sea. Should the hon. and learned Gentleman desire any other figures, I will, of course, try to supply them.

Following are the figures:


MIGRANTS OF COMMONWEALTH CITIZENSHIP TRAVELLING DIRECT BY SEA FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM TO CANADA, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, AND SOUTH AFRICA


—
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
South Africa


1953
41,300
30,200
14,500
6,500


1954
38,600
34,500
10,400
5,900


1955 (Jan.-Sept.)
21,600
28,200
7,300
3,600

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT ACTS (EXPENDITURE)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what total amount, and what proportion of the amount authorised, was spent under the provisions of the Empire Settlement Acts in the years 1953, 1954 and 1955, respectively.

Commander Noble: Details of the annual figures of expenditure under the Empire Settlements Acts since the war were given on 15th December, 1955, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt). The total for the three years from 1st April, 1952, to 31st March, 1955, was £550,136. The maximum figure which the Secretary of State is enabled to contribute towards agreed schemes under the Acts is £1,500,000.

Mr. Johnson: Would my hon. and gallant Friend not agree that it would be desirable to make full use of the power provided under that Act, first, because it is most desirable to keep up the proportion of British-born citizens in those countries, notably in Canada, and secondly, because emigrants from this country are not only customers for our goods but potential salesmen?

Commander Noble: I agree with the sentiments put forward by my hon. Friend, but I do not think that this is essentially a financial problem. If we spent more money, I am not sure that we should necessarily get more emigrants. If my hon. Friend has any ideas by which, by spending more money, we could help, I should be grateful if he would let me know.

Mr. P. Williams: Would my hon. and gallant Friend agree that this is a matter which should be handled by the Government of the United Kingdom, and would he urge the Prime Minister to consider the matter of emigration policy generally at the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth Ministers?

Commander Noble: There is, of course, complete consultation the whole time in London between the Commonwealth High Commissioners concerned and ourselves on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Textiles (Labelling)

Miss Barton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to give some details concerning the voluntary agreement reached by the laundry organisations, the British Standards Institution and the representatives of his Department on the problem of textile labelling for washing and cleaning purposes.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I am informed that the terms of this agreement are still under discussion, though good progress has been made since the hon. Lady last asked a Question on this subject.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am very pleased to hear that some progress is being made after all these years? Does he hope that if I put down a Question in two or three weeks time, we may have reached the ultimate goal of this discussion?

Mr. Thorneycroft: While not giving any undertaking about that, I think that the hon. Lady's Questions and my replies are helping to speed it along.

Mr. Bottomley: Can the Minister say what is holding up the settlement?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is only the drafting of fairly complicated arrangements involving quite a number of persons. Arriving at a voluntary agreement does take a little time.

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made by the rayon industry in confirmation of their assurance to him that rayon cloths satisfying tests of shrink resistance and colour fastness would be

marked for convenience of shoppers as stated by him to the House on 12th November, 1953.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In addition to the performance standards referred to in my answer of 12th November, 1953, a British Standard has been agreed and published for the construction of certain warp-knitted cloths.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I asked him what the rayon industry had done in confirmation of its pledge to him? Is he further aware that although he gave that pledge to the House in all good faith, it has not been honoured? What steps does he propose to take to see that it is honoured?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am aware of those facts, but the circumstances in which I was given an undertaking by the rayon industry—which was not kept by it—have been debated and explained, or at least analysed, upon a number of occasions. I do not think I can add anything further.

Miss Burton: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I know that he gave the undertaking in good faith, but what happens to the consumer? Good faith does not produce good materials. Is the President just to let the matter go at that?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is not part of the Government's policy to introduce a system of compulsory labelling.

Hire Purchase Advertisements

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consult the Newspaper Proprietors Association, the Weekly Newspapers Periodical Proprietors Association and the Independent Television Authority as a preliminary to legislation to control the acceptance of hire purchase advertisements.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Newspaper Proprietors Association, the Periodical Proprietors Association and the Independent Television Authority have already been asked for their views on this subject.

Miss Burton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel able to be a little more forthcoming and able to tell the House what their views were? Is not the Newspaper Proprietors Association already careful with regard to the type of advertisement it accepts in its newspapers?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is true that some improvement has taken place in the standard of these advertisements, which is a matter which we should all take into account in considering the question of legislation.

Steel Production

Mr. Albu: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the results of his discussions with the Iron and Steel Board about the industry's plans for meeting our requirements of steel, particularly of plate and sheet, in the next five years.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am advised by the Iron and Steel Board that steel production is expected to increase over the three years 1956–1958 by more than 3 million ingot tons. Within this overall figure, there will be substantial increases in sheet capacity and some increases towards the end of the period in plate capacity. Plans for succeeding years are under consideration.

Mr. Albu: In view of the fact that we imported £88 million worth of steel last year, and also that because of the growth of the engineering industry and the orders which have been recently received by the shipbuilding industry in particular, the demand for steel will rise, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he has a certain responsibility for the expansion plan? Are the rumours correct that private firms now owning the bulk of the industry are unwilling to take the risk of this expansion?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think that there is any truth in these rumours, but the hon. Member is quite right to draw attention to the importance of the expansion plan, which is under close consideration by the Board, whose first responsibilty it is.

Monopolies (Tariff Protection)

Mr. Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now withdraw tariff protection from all complete or partial monopolies, and from industries indulging in price-fixing agreements.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. I could not prejudge any proposal to adjust an Import Duty, but Her Majesty's Government would take into account all the

relevant factors, including the structure of the industry concerned.

Mr. Holt: Can the Minister say how he aligns the two apparently contradictory policies of bringing in a stronger Monopolies Bill and, at the same time, giving tariff protection to those industries which are carrying out practices of which he apparently disapproves?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The question of tariff protection is a quite separate one which is judged upon well-established principles by the Government and, in appropriate cases, raised or lowered.

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

Mr. Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade what United Kingdom tariffs he is proposing to reduce at the present session of the signatories of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to cut the cost of living in the United Kingdom.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I cannot anticipate the outcome of these negotiations. Any reductions which we may make in our tariff will depend on the extent to which other countries are willing to make concessions in favour of our exports.

Mr. Holt: Does not the President think that in the present state of G.A.T.T. it is most essential that that Agreement is not allowed to stagnate; it must either go backwards or forwards? Unless we make positive proposals for reductions of tariffs, is not the Agreement likely to fall down before long?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If I were to state at this Box all the tariff reductions I was proposing to make, my bargaining position in Geneva would be a little embarrassed.

Mr. Wade: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make on the progress of the tariff negotiations at Geneva between participating Governments in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. The negotiations, which have only just begun, must be conducted in confidence, and no report can therefore be expected before their conclusion.

Mr. Wade: Can the Minister give us an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not introduce any new or increased tariffs or other import restrictions which might not only wreck the Geneva Conference but have serious repercussions in countries to which we export, and so adversely affect our export trade?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If we are to have successful negotiation, we ought to leave the hands of our negotiators free.

Mr. Amery: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that no fewer than five Commonwealth countries have not bothered—in my view rightly so—to send their delegations to the G.A.T.T. meeting? How does my right hon. Friend reconcile this fact with his own repeated assertions that the Commonwealth were enthusiastically in favour of this organisation?

Mr. Thorneycroft: There are many activities in this organisation other than this particular round of tariff negotiation; which indeed is not being conducted over a very wide front owing to the fact that the United States are limited to reductions of about 15 per cent. in any event.

Mr. Holt: While agreeing that negotiators should be left a free hand, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not agree that they should not be given a free hand to put G.A.T.T. into reverse?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think there is any question of this Government having put G.A.T.T. into reverse.

Mr. Wade: asked the President of the Board of Trade what attitude was adopted by Her Majesty's Government towards the limitation of the tariff negotations at Geneva, whereby such negotiations may be conducted only on a selective product-by-product basis, and for what reasons.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Her Majesty's Government fully supported the decision of the contracting parties to conduct the present negotiations on the usual product-by-product basis. An alternative plan was at one stage presented which would not, in my view, have ensured equitable results for all participating countries.

Mr. Wade: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the bilateral approach does not seem to offer very much

hope for substantial reductions? Will he press for further negotiations with a view to all-round reductions in tariffs?

Mr. Thorneycroft: This is not a bilateral approach. This is a multilateral tariff negotiation on exactly the same basis as those which took place at Annecy and Torquay.

Mr. Baldwin: Would my right hon. Friend take steps to oppose the policy of the Liberal Party, who want to return to free trade, the system which ruined agriculture in this country and very nearly brought us to starvation in two world wars?

Mr. Thorneycroft: What I am concerned with in the context of this question is to conduct negotiations satisfactorily to the interest of this country.

Monopolies Bill

Mr. Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he hopes to intro duce his new Monopolies Bill.

Mr. Moyle: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to introduce the Monopolies Bill.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I hope to introduce a Bill some time in February.

Bentonite

Lieut-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the dollar cost of bentonite imported from the United States of America during 1955.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Bentonite is not separately distinguished in the trade returns, but the dollar cost of imports in 1955 is estimated to be of the order of £150,000.

Lieut-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is my right hon. Friend aware that five well-known foundries in this country are all agreed upon the very high quality of British-made standard bentonite? Will he not therefore consider imposing some form of restriction or control—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said some form of control—in order to help the British manufacturers of bentonite, who did very well for this country during the war?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I fully accept the efficiency and competence of manufacturers here, but I would point out that this


is a useful raw material, used by the steel founders. The producers here have the benefit of a 10 per cent. duty.

Balance of Trade

Mr. Dodds: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the concern that has arisen as a result of the trade gap for 1955 having worsened by £265 million, when compared with 1954; and what action is to be taken to deal with the situation.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 24th January, to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).

Mr. Dodds: Is not the right hon. Gentleman much more deeply concerned than was suggested in the answer by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am just as deeply concerned as the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Jay: As uncertainty about the Government's policy in relation to the balance of payments is damaging in many ways, can the President at least say how soon the Government will make up their mind and make a statement?

Mr. Thorneycroft: At this stage I do not wish to add anything to what my right hon. Friend has said.

China

Mr. Dodds: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made in increasing trade between this country and China; and what are the prospects for the next 12 months.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Trade between this country and China was 28 per cent. higher in 1955 than in the previous year. The prospects are that it will be maintained at this level in 1956.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister satisfied that we are doing the best we can? Is he not aware that in many responsible quarters there is still a feeling that the Government have been far too cautious in matters of this sort?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The figures show a substantial increase.

Mr. Dodds: It is not good enough.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for about three years we have never been given a clear answer to the question of the Government's attitude with regard to trade with China? Now, nearly three years after the end of the fighting in Korea, is it not time that this boycott was relaxed, and the same restrictions placed upon trade with China as apply to trade with Eastern Europe?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That question, although pertinent, raises wider issues than can be dealt with simply by way of question and answer.

East Africa (Shipping Delays)

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that exports to British East Africa are at a great disadvantage compared with those of continental and other Commonwealth countries owing to port and shipping delays; and if he will consult with the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation with a view to overcoming these difficulties.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am indeed aware of the complaint referred to by my hon. Friend, and my Department is in consultation with other Departments with a view to relieving the situation.

Oil Companies

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer to the Monopolies Commission the activities of the oil companies in connection with the distribution of petroleum in this country and, in particular, their purchase of and control over a high proportion of the petrol filling stations.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am not proposing for the time being to make any further references to the Commission.

Mr. Wilson: We all recognise that it is the common practice of successive Presidents not to state in advance what references they will make, but will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very full and fair article in a recent copy of the Economist dealing with this matter? When he is considering his next reference, will he also take into account the effect upon the distribution of oil, petrol, and,


above all, accessories, by the practice of oil companies buying up one petrol station after another and tying them all up?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have read the article and will bear the point in mind.

Mr. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind what the article says about dealing with the restrictive practices on the other side of the industry when he deals with the employers' side?

Mr. Beswick: Does not the President recall that it is now at least three years since he said that he was considering the reference of this industry to the Monopolies Commission? Can he say why he has been unable to make up his mind during those years?

Mr. Thorneycroft: My mind is made up, but I have not made a reference. I am considering the points put to me by the right hon. Gentleman.

Danish Textile Duties

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Denmark concerning the proposed tariff on the import into Denmark of British textile goods; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Most of the Danish textile duties were bound under the G.A.T.T. in 1949 in the form of the then existing specific duties with permitted ad valorem alternatives. The latter are about equivalent to the prewar incidence of the specific duties. A change to these alternative duties, which is what is proposed, would be within Denmark's international obligations, and there is no ground on which Her Majesty's Government could base representations.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that although this is quite legal it may be very damaging to the interests of this country? Is he quite satisfied that this proposed action by Denmark has no connection with the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to place a tariff on Danish bacon?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. I do not think there is any connection between the two.

Mrs. Castle: Has the right hon. Gentleman been consulted about the discussions now going on with the Danes over the imposition of a tariff on Danish bacon? If so, what representations has he made to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food against these proposals?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Government stand as one upon these matters.

Costs and Prices

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consult the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers and other representatives of trade and industry as to the possibility of extending the scheme initiated by the cement industry for fixing maximum prices for a definite period.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I do not think consultations such as my hon. Friend suggests are necessary, but I will bear the point in mind in my contacts with representatives of trade and industry. While the circumstances of individual industries vary widely, industrialists are well aware of the importance which the Government attaches to their efforts to keep costs and prices down.

Mr. Johnson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this very commendable example might well be followed by trade unions in their demand for higher wages?

Lieut-Colonel Upton: Will not the President of the Board of Trade also consult the Government-owned British Petroleum Company and ask them to give some kind of undertaking not to increase prices, say for the next twelve months?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Crane Makers (Steel Supplies)

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the shortage of steel confronting the crane industry; and whether he will curtail the large amount of unfabricated steel now exported.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am aware that crane makers are having difficulties in obtaining their full needs of steel from


home production as are other manufacturing industries. Production of steel is increasing and direct exports of steel are being limited.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I am sure that the industry will be glad to hear that direct exports of steel are being limited. Is my right hon. Friend aware that this industry exports one third of its production and could export more? Could he therefore say definitely whether representations have been made to the board that more should be put on the home market by this industry?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Production is expanding, and there is a voluntary arrangement to restrict exports to the 1955 level. I am sure that my noble Friend will bear in mind that some of these exports are to United Kingdom companies overseas.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is not the Minister aware that, in spite of very high imports of steel into this country at a very considerable dollar cost, not only the crane industry but many other essential industries are chronically short of steel at the present time? Does not he agree that this is mainly due to the expansion in unlicensed and now free-of-licence and unnecessary building? Would not the right hon. Gentleman be able to deal with the problem raised by his noble Friend and maintain our steel exports if he were to introduce control upon entirely unnecessary building?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am very doubtful whether that would be a useful approach to the subject, and in any event it raises quite other questions.

Hire-Purchase Goods (Sale)

Mr. Awbery: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that goods purchased on the hire system have been reclaimed after most of the price has been paid and the regular payments continued because the purchaser has sold the article; and if he will introduce legislation to protect such people where the required conditions regarding periodic payments are being carried out.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: A hirer has no right to dispose of goods which he is acquiring on hire-purchase without obtaining the permission of the owner and can claim no protection if he does so.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a case came before a court recently where a man had paid 75 per cent. of the cost of an article, and it had been confiscated because he sold it to someone else, although he was prepared to continue the periodical payments for the article?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am aware of these difficulties, but a man really ought not to sell what does not belong to him.

Central Electricity Authority (Hire Purchase Trade)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Central Electricity Authority has increased its hire purchase trade by over 100 per cent., and is charging only 6 per cent. interest, whereas private traders charge up to 16 per cent. interest; and if he will take steps to put the private traders on equal terms with the nationalised industry.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): The last Annual Report of the Authority shows that a development of this kind took place after the withdrawal of the Hire Purchase Control Orders in July, 1954. It has however, I understand, been checked since the restrictions imposed by the Orders of February and July, 1955, which apply to transactions of the public boards and private traders alike. The answer to the last part of the Question is: No, Sir; the rates of interest charged to customers are a matter for the area electricity boards and other traders respectively.

Mr. Osborne: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Electrical Contractors' Association formed a finance company to lower the charges made to their customers, that the scheme was passed by the Board of Trade some twelve months ago but was stopped by the Capital Issues Committee? Does he think it is fair that nationalised industries should have facilities for hire purchase business that are better than can be offered by the trade?

Sir E. Boyle: Questions on this nationalised industry ought to be put to my hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Mr. Strachey: Would the Parliamentary Secretary and his hon. Friends make up their minds whether their objection to the nationalised industries is that they charge too much or charge too little?

Sir E. Boyle: I was not aware that I said anything specifically critical of the nationalised industries.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Cost of Living

Mr. Dodds: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the concern at the two points increase in the cost-of-living index for November, following a similar increase the previous month; and, in view of the importance of the matter, if he will state what action is being taken to prevent further increases.

Mr. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the rise in the retail price index from 129 to 154 during his predecessor's tenure of office; and what proposals he has for reducing the cost of living.

Sir E. Boyle: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) on Tuesday.

Mr. Dodds: But that is not good enough. Will the Minister explain how it is that, despite the solemn pledges given, the cost of living rose in 1955 faster than in any other year since 1951? Is he surprised mat in this morning's News Chronicle the Gallup Poll shows that if a General Election were held now he and his party would be badly walloped?

Sir E. Boyle: I do not know about being badly walloped. We cannot debate that matter now, and I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Jay: If we cannot debate the matter now, can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that there will at least be no further rises in the cost of living in the next six months?

Sir E. Boyle: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman gave no similar assurance when he occupied my present office.

Sterling (Exchange Value)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that sterling will continue to be maintained at $2.80.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. H. WILSON: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any statement to make about his intentions regarding the maintenance of the exchange value of sterling.

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir. The statement made by my right hon. Friend's predecessor at Istanbul in September, 1955, represents Government policy and stands. With permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Osborne: Can we take it that this promise made by a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer that there will be no devaluation has much more merit and has meant more than similar assurances given by a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Jay: If, as the President of the Board of Trade said just now. the Government do not know what their policy is, how can the hon. Gentleman be sure that this policy will maintain the value of the £?

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend said nothing of the kind. I can give a most unqualified assurance to the House and to the country that the Lord Privy Seal's statement at Istanbul still stands as Government policy.

Mr. H. Wilson: On a point of order. I gave notice earlier this afternoon that I was not putting Question No. 49, and the hon. Gentleman was so informed. We would like to have a clear answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I say that without intending any discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir E. Boyle: I am sorry. I meant no discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman.

Following is the statement:

Extract from Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Istanbul, September, 1955

There has been some discussion recently in various quarters about the nature of the United Kingdom views on rate policy. Let me repeat what I said in the House of Commons on 25th July, 1955:

"There is no doubt about the policy of the Government in relation to the exchange value of the £ sterling, and I can give this policy in one sentence. It has been, and will continue to be, the maintenance of exchange parity of 2·80 dollars to the £,


either in existing circumstances or when sterling is convertible. In the long run this must depend upon our efforts. Nothing else can replace these."

I have made it clear that we do not contemplate any early move on any (I repeat any) aspects of the exchange front. We must first go through the arduous process of strengthening our internal and competitive position. My Government has taken no decision upon the timing of the convertibility of sterling, nor upon the nature of the exchange arrangements after that date.

It will thus be seen that all discussions and rumours about impending changes of the parity of, or margins for, sterling are both unrealistic and irrelevant. I hope henceforth that the efforts we have made and shall make in the United Kingdom to strengthen sterling and prepare the way for the future will not be hampered by false impressions or by inaccurate reports.

Loss of Earnings (Court Awards)

Mr. Page: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will initiate legislation which will enable the courts to assess damages for loss of earnings without regard to the injured party's tax liability but which will make any such damages liable to assessment for tax over a period.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): The question of amending the law governing damages for loss of earnings from physical injury does not fall within my right hon. Friend's province. He is not at present satisfied that any alteration of the tax law in this matter is called for.

Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent decision of the courts? Although the position before this decision was unfair to the Chancellor, in that the successful litigant obtained the benefit of the tax, does he not think that it is even more unfair to the Chancellor now that the unsuccessful litigant obtains the benefit of the tax? Is not this really a tax matter?

Mr. Brooke: I understand that on the Order Paper for a future day there is a Question addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General which is connected with the first part of my hon. Friend's Question. I think that it would be better for us to see what answer is given to that Question before we follow up all the tax implications.

Post-war Credits

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in preparing his next Budget, he will give priority to the repayment of post-war credits in cases of hardship.

Mr. H. Brooke: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) on 3rd November last.

Mr. Fletcher: But a new Chancellor of the Exchequer has been appointed since then. Can we not therefore have some assurance of a new approach to this problem? Will the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues bear in mind that there are still innumerable cases of grave hardship to elderly people who are entitled to their post-war credits but are unable to get them?

Mr. Brooke: I said in November that I had great personal sympathy with those who have been holding post-war credits for a long period. No Government of any political colour has been able so far to find a solution to the hardship problem, but I grant to the hon. Member and to the House that there is a problem here and that, if we could find a solution to it, it would be very helpful.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Would my right hon. Friend look at those cases where hardship arises through disease, war disability and the like, and try to find a limited solution there at least?

Mr. Brooke: The fundamental difficulty is to find a definition which will correctly demarcate hardship. Whatever the form of words one settled upon one might well find that there were some even harder cases which would be left out, and one wishes to try to do justice to everyone.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would the Financial Secretary explain to the House what effect might be produced on our credit if the Government of the United Kingdom treated all its war loan debts in the same way as it has treated these post-war credits?

Mr. Brooke: That goes far beyond the Question on the Order Paper. There are some £520 million worth of post-war credits outstanding, and I do not think that the major question could be dealt with outside a Budget.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the minds of many people the inflationary implications of repaying post-war credits in full are outweighed by the moral obligation of the State to discharge this debt? Is he aware that there is a continuing public anxiety on the matter which should be redressed in the forthcoming Budget?

Mr. Brooke: I have taken note of everything that has been said in the House today, and I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to it.

£ Sterling (Purchasing Power)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of £1 now in purchasing power as compared with 20s. purchasing power in October, 1951.

Sir E. Boyle: Taking the internal purchasing power of the £ as 20 shillings in October, 1951, it is estimated that the corresponding figure for December, 1955, was 17s. 7d. This estimate is based on the consumer price index between 1951 and 1954, and the Interim Index of Retail Prices thereafter.

Mr. Jeger: Does the hon. Gentleman realise in what a difficult position many of us who are asked to address National Savings rallies are placed, when since 1951, under a Conservative Administration, any saver would have lost 2s. 5d. in every £ he saved?

Sir E. Boyle: The fact still remains that nothing could do more to halt the progress of inflation than an increase in private savings.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the Economic Secretary think that he owes the country an apology for those figures?

Captain Pilkington: But is there not some degree of satisfaction in the fact that the value of the £ has fallen very much less under a Conservative Government than it did under a Socialist Government?

New Rating Valuations (Schedule A)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement regarding the effect of the new valuation of property on Schedule A payments.

Mr. H. Brooke: The new rating valuation which comes into force in England and Wales next April can have no effect on the existing Schedule A assessments on property without specific legislation. The Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income made certain recommendations in its final Report, but my right hon. Friend has not yet completed his consideration of the matter.

Scientific Research (Expenditure)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer approximately how much is being spent per annum on fundamental scientific research in this country.

Mr. H. Brooke: It is not possible to give any reliable estimate of total expenditure. For expenditure out of public funds, I would refer the hon. Member to Appendix A of the Memorandum on the Civil Estimates, which summarises the amounts provided on Votes in connections with research and development.

Mr. Fletcher: I am much obliged for that answer, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever the figure, it is quite inadequate if this country is to hold its own with the immense sums being spent on scientific research in Soviet Russia?

Mr. Brooke: From the debate which we had last July, I think that the House will know how near this is to my heart, and I am very glad that there seems good prospect of the Imperial College development in South Kensington going forward.

Mr. Albu: Referring to the right hon. Gentleman's last remark, can he say when it is proposed to introduce the legislation necessary before the Imperial College can get a site on which to build?

Mr. Brooke: It is not for me to decide when legislation will be presented to the House.

University Grants (Scientific Research)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in approving university grants for the next quinquennium, he will ensure that specific funds


are allocated for scientific research at university institutions to meet the urgent and growing national needs of technological education.

Mr. H. Brooke: My right hon. Friend will take full account of the needs of technological education in determining the amount of grant to be made available to the universities through the University Grants Committee. Recurrent grants are in aid of their general income, and it is not proposed to earmark part of them for specific purposes.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not the Financial Secretary think that that is very unsatisfactory, because we shall not get adequate sums spent on technical education unless the University Grants Committee has power to earmark moneys for that purpose?

Mr. Brooke: I have had experience on both sides of the University Grants Committee, because I was at one time a member of the Court of the University of London. It was with the full agreement of the universities that the practice of earmarking recurrent grants was abandoned. Discretion is now left to the universities.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the overriding national necessity to do everything possible to further our technological progress, will the Minister now review that policy, which was determined some years ago?

Mr. Brooke: I really think that it would be better to leave it in the hands—the wise hands—of the universities and of the University Grants Committee.

Service and Civil Service Pensions

Captain Corfield: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is yet in a position to make a statement, following his review of the Pensions (Increase) Acts.

Dr. King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to state when he proposes to introduce legislation to improve the pensions of civil servants, local government staff, teachers, and others who retired on pensions based on smaller incomes than are at present paid, and who suffer hardship because of the rise in the cost of living.

Mr. H. Brooke: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which my right

hon. Friend gave to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for the New Forest (Col. Crosthwaite-Eyre), on 24th January.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend's reply gives great hope and great pleasure to thousands of very deserving people in the country, and will he ask his right hon. Friend whether he will make legislation bringing that pledge into effect a very high priority in the Government's business?

Mr. Brooke: I think that is a question for my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.

Dame Irene Ward: Should I be right in taking it from my right hon. Friend—and I shall be delighted if he will give me a reply—that the whole policy towards the small fixed income groups is under consideration, particularly after the Prime Minister's speech at Bradford? Could he give some guidance from the Treasury to Ministers who are now undertaking Departmental Bills so that they will know how they ought to go forward on this very important matter?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend and I had some discussion on this very important subject on the Motion for the Adjournment shortly before Christmas. The Questions which are on the Order Paper today concern exclusively those pensioners who derive their pensions through service to the State.

Mr. Younger: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether his answer covers the special disability under which people who formerly served in India may suffer?

Mr. Brooke: I should not like to give a detailed answer without notice, but I hope that the Measure will be forthcoming before long.

National Debt

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his present estimate of the total expenditure on National Debt interest in the present financial year; and how this compares with the previous year.

Mr. H. Brooke: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Financial Statement of 19th April, 1955. It is not the practice to publish revised Budget Estimates in the course of the financial year.

Mr. Jay: Does the Financial Secretary realise that this Government are spending something like £200 million a year more than the Labour Government on debt interest and that this weighs very heavily on the balance of payments as well as on the Budget? Does he not think there is some field here for economy?

Mr. Brooke: I think this is a question which is eminently suitable for debate at the time of the Budget and the Finance Bill which follows it.

Savings

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in order to provide further encouragement for savings, he will exempt from Income Tax all interest due to individual taxpayers up to a limit of £50 per annum.

Mr. H. Brooke: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any statement on the important question of incentives to save. In any case my hon. Friend will realise that his suggestion would be a matter for the Budget, which I cannot anticipate.

Sir F. Medlicott: Will the Minister recall what was said only a few minutes ago by the Economic Secretary about the vital importance of saving to the check on inflation? Will he also bear in mind that some Income Tax relief of this kind might not only lead to a spectacular increase in savings but would, almost for the first time in this century, mean that thrift would be rewarded instead of being penalised?

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already shown to the House how much importance he attaches to incentives to save, but these tax matters cannot be discussed in advance of the forthcoming Budget.

National Expenditure

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is now the weekly payment per head of the population in respect of defence, housing and health and other major items of national expenditure.

Mr. H. Brooke: Average weekly expenditure on the services provided by the Government and by local authorities, per head of the total population, during the

year 1954, was as follows: on defence 12s. 8d.; on housing 3s. 8d.; on health 4s. 1d.; on education and child care 4s. 2d.; on National Insurance benefits, pensions and assistance 7s.; on National Debt interest 4s. 9d.; and on all other services 8s. 9d. I regret that similar information is not yet available for the year 1955.

Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether the weekly cost of housing is going down and the weekly expenditure on so-called defence is going up?

Mr. Brooke: The Estimates for 1956–57 will be published shortly and will provide additional information.

Sir T. Moore: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether this sum of 4s. 9d. to which he referred as coming under the National Debt is not largely due to the American loan incurred by the former Government on which the interest became payable in 1952?

Mr. Brooke: I was cautious a few minutes ago about answering a supplementary question on the National Debt, and I think my caution had better extend to the subject under this head, too.

ARTS COUNCIL SURVEY

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the terms of reference under which the Arts Council is to undertake a survey of the nation's needs in concert halls and theatres.

Mr. H. Brooke: This survey comes within the scope of the Arts Council as laid down by its Charter, and my right hon. Friend therefore does not think it necessary to give the Council formal terms of reference. There will be discussion with the Council from time to time on the manner in which the survey can best be conducted.

Mr. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Arts Council has already committed itself, in quite definite terms, to a policy of having as few theatres as possible? Will he impress upon the Council that it should not bring such preconceived ideas to its task?

Mr. Brooke: The Arts Council is a body set up with the consent, I think, of all parties in the House to handle these


matters. It seems to me that as this matter lies within its terms of reference we should give the Council the opportunity of making a study of it and preparing a report.

MIDDLE EAST (TROOPS)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the reasons for reinforcing the Middle East.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
As has already been announced, the despatch of additional troops to Cyprus has been authorised as a precautionary measure in view of the disturbed position in the Middle East, in order to increase the forces at the disposal of the Commander-in-Chief for the protection of British subjects in the area, should the need arise.

Mr. Grimond: As, from the answer, it appears that the troops, as the House will be glad to hear, are not needed solely to restore order in Cyprus, can we be told whether there were any consultations with other Powers interested in the Middle East, such as the three parties to the tripartite guarantee, as to the need for these troops?

Mr. Butler: I should want notice of that supplementary question in order to give an accurate reply.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that there is considerable indignation in Scotland at the fact that young National Service men with only three months' service are being sent to Cyprus? Does he not think that something should be done to stop that?

Mr. Butler: I should have to investigate the time factor to which the hon. Member refers—namely, three months. I am aware that certain National Service men who have been a short time so far in the Service have been sent to Cyprus. That is a matter which has been considered and which is inevitable in the circumstances.

Mr. Brooman-White: Is not it obvious that the presence of these troops in this area at this time will be a stabilising element and will be welcome to all people

who want to reduce the tension and the danger of an outbreak in the area?

Mr. Butler: The main consideration which must be before the House, as I reflect, is that these troops are in the Middle East for the purpose, should need arise, of protecting British lives, which will be regarded by all hon. Members as a not unworthy object.

Mr. Younger: Is it not to be hoped that the presence of these troops has a bigger stabilising effect than the visit of the C.I.G.S. to Jordan?

LORD PRIVY SEAL (RESPONSIBILITIES)

Mr. Jay: asked the Prime Minister what are the responsibilities of the Lord Privy Seal.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In the absence of my right hon. Friend, one of my responsibilities is to reply to this Question on his behalf. He wishes me to say that as Leader of the House my chief responsibility will be to handle the Government's programme of legislation and other Government business in Parliament.
My right hon. Friend has also asked me to answer Questions in this House on the atomic energy matters which are within the field of responsibility of my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council. These Questions should be put down for Wednesdays, when they will be placed at No. 45 or after any Questions there may be for the Prime Minister.

Mr. Jay: While noting the right hon. Gentleman's new interest in atomic energy, can he say whether he has special responsibility for the future policy of the Government, including economic policy? Will he say whether he works whole-time for the Government or whether part of his time is spent at the Conservative Central Office?

Mr. Butler: Modesty forbids me from defining the many duties which will fall to my lot inside the Government, but the right hon. Gentleman may well be satisfied that my time is devoted to the service, first of all, of the House of Commons, and secondly, to the interests of the country.

Mrs. Mann: Could the right hon. Gentleman not say, on behalf of the Prime


Minister, that one of the greatest responsibilities of the present Lord Privy Seal is that of allowing the cost of living in this country to shoot up through the roof in the last four years?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Lady is looking to matters which I should like to have an opportunity of debating with her on some future occasion when I could give a more adequate reply, and a convincing one, to her allegations.

PRINTING DISPUTE (PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS)

Sir E. Errington: asked the Secretary to the Treasury to what extent Her Majesty's Stationery Office is affected by the dispute in the printing industry; and what effects there will be on the printing of Parliamentary papers.

Mr. H. Brooke: Serious delays may occur in the printing for Government Departments by H.M. Stationery Office Printing Works and by the numerous commercial printers who hold Stationery Office contracts. As far as can be foreseen, the only Parliamentary printing which may be delayed are Reports of Standing Committees, which may be delivered to Members a day later than usual, and HANSARD for Fridays, which may not be delivered to Members until the following Monday morning.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Slaughterhouses

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet reached a decision on the recommendations of the Inter-departmental Committee on Slaughterhouses.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): Final decisions have not yet been reached.

Mr. Hynd: As the Minister has been giving that reply month after month, could he not at least reach a decision on the question of Sunday slaughtering which so much affects the expenditure of local authorities?

Mr. Amory: As I have said before, I am as anxious as the hon. Member to get

a firm proposal before the House at the earliest moment. I am equally anxious to get the widest possible measure of agreement before I forward definite proposals. I feel that a few months spent in doing that will be time very well spent.

Slaughter of Animals Act

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the progress made in carrying out the provisions of the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amory: I have no reason to doubt that in general satisfactory progress is being made; but in a number of cases stricter enforcement is needed, and I am taking appropriate action when such cases come to my notice.

Mr. Moyle: May I ask the Minister if he has received the usual co-operation from animal welfare societies, for instance, the International League for the Protection of Horses?

Mr. Amory: I am in close touch with the International League for the Protection of Horses, and its advice and help is of very great use to me. I wish to thank the hon. Member for the interest and very constructive part he has taken in the furtherance of these measures to increase the humanity of slaughtering conditions.

Maize

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why large quantities of maize are being obtained from the dollar area when there is a surplus of maize in the Union of South Africa.

Mr. Amory: Following the ending of Government control, the import of maize is a matter for private importers who are free to obtain supplies from any source. Substantial quantities of South African maize are, however, being imported.

Mr. Russell: Is it not a fact that last year much more maize was imported from the United States than from South Africa? Is that not unwise in view of the shortage of dollars? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to consider using the tariff weapon to increase the import of maize from the Empire?

Mr. Amory: The amount of maize we are importing from South Africa appears to be steadily on the increase. I think it is best to leave it to the importers to decide where they can get exactly the qualities they need at the most advantageous prices.

Mr. H. Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that our gold and dollar reserves fell last year by 700 million dollars to a dangerously low figure? Is his approach to this question and his laissez faire answer symptomatic of the lack of urgency which the new Chancellor is to show in this problem?

Mr. Amory: I think I can leave it with confidence to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have due regard to that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Osborne: Can my hon. Friend say what the comparable prices are of dollar and Empire maize?

Mr. Amory: I cannot do that without notice, but I think the bulk of the South African maize imported is white maize, more suitable for industrial purposes than for animal feeding.

Mr. Holt: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that putting up the tariff merely puts up the cost of living? Will he not give in to any reactionary elements or suggestions from whatever side of the House they may come?

Trawlers (Grants)

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now increase the grants available for building new trawlers.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir, I have no power to do so. The rate of grant is fixed by the White Fish and Herring Industries Act of 1953 and to increase it would require fresh legislation. Certain changes in the schemes for grants proposed by the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board, some of which would require legislation, are under consideration, but I am not in a position to make a statement.

Lady Tweedsmuir: While the Minister is considering these matters, will he bear in mind that it is more practical to encourage the new building of trawlers by these arangements than by giving large subsidies for steam vessels?

Mr. Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend that these building grants and loans are extremely useful, and they are producing a very satisfactory result in the number of new trawlers being built and the number of new engines being fitted.

Mr. Hector Hughes: As this Question pinpoints a very real defect in the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, will the Minister take steps to rectify that defect?

Mr. Amory: I am not quite clear as to the defect to which the hon. and learned Member is referring.

Mr. Speaker: rose——

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. The Minister said he was not clear about the purport of my question. Perhaps you will allow me to make it clear, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member had better write to the Minister to explain it.

Milk Sterilisation (Research)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is being undertaken to find more efficient and cheaper methods of sterilising milk; and what figures he has for the cost of sterilising milk by pasteurising and otherwise in the course of this research.

Mr. Amory: Milk may be heat-treated either by pasteurisation or by sterilisation. Research into both processes is conducted by the National Institute for Research in Dairying and by a number of private firms. The cost of pasteurisation varies greatly with circumstances and normally ranges between 1d. and 2d. a gallon. The cost of sterilisation is about the same.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that it is estimated that 15 per cent. of the price paid for the milk is charged for sterilising or pasteurising? Will he take steps to hasten the result of new methods of pasteurising?

Mr. Amory: I think the hon. Member will find that those figures are a very long way out. We are prosecuting research, and I am very anxious that as soon as that research produces results those results shall be applied.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures given me show that it costs ½d. a pint to sterilise milk?

Chinese Eggs (Infection)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking in regard to the consignment of tins of Chinese eggs sold in this country and found to contain paratyphoid and food poisoning germs; what other consignments are expected; and what action is being taken when they arrive.

Mr. Amory: Arrangements have been made with the public health authorities for the destruction of the small number of tins of Chinese frozen egg which were recently found to contain paratyphoid and other food poisoning germs. In addition, special arrangements have been made for the examination of the same type of pack, not only in the remainder of the consignment from which these tins were drawn, but also from all other shipments still in stock here.
All imports of Chinese frozen whole egg are now brought in on private account, but the trade agreed some time ago to notify the Ministry of Health of impending arrivals so that the public health authorities concerned might sample consignments on arrival in this country.

Mr. Janner: In view of the fact that two consignments, separated by a couple of months, contained quite a large number of these contaminated eggs, is the Minister satisfied that the precautions which are being taken are sufficient to meet the contingencies which might arise?

Mr. Amory: I believe so. This is a very important matter, and I am anxious that every possible step should be taken—so is the Minister of Health—to deal with it. We are arranging for all stocks of frozen Chinese egg to be examined as rapidly as possible.

Dr. Summerskill: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he proposes to

make that his policy in regard to all foodstuffs from abroad—to test them before they reach the consumer?

Mr. Amory: That aspect is the responsibility of the Minister of Health. As the right hon. Lady knows, the medical officers of health of local authorities have that responsibility and carry it out.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to confirm what appears to be the case from a Written Reply I had to a Question two days ago and say whether in the two importations the Government were the principal in the transaction and the firm of Epdal, Ltd., was merely acting as the agents? If that is the fact, would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to express profound regret that a large number of my constituents had paratyphoid and some nearly died of it?

Mr. Amory: As I have said, I regard this as a very serious matter indeed. Naturally I am very glad to express deep sympathy with all who have suffered from it. The Government are not now importers of this frozen egg. It is being imported by private traders, but we are disposing of our stocks.

Mr. Willey: In view of these cases, will the right hon. Gentleman review his policy, which was to dispose of these stocks over a considerable period? Would it not be more advisable now to dispose of them as quickly as possible?

Mr. Amory: I think the hon. Member must leave it to me to dispose of these stocks in the best way in the interests of all concerned. I am taking every conceivable step to ensure that there shall not be a recurrence of this trouble.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman estimate the age of the eggs?

Mr. Amory: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member is expecting me to reply in terms of days, weeks, months or years.

HEROIN

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Lieut.-Colonel LIPTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to ban the manufacture of heroin.

Mr. K. ROBINSON: TO ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now decided to introduce legislation in the current Session to legalise the banning of the manufacture of heroin.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to answer these two Questions.
The Government's aim in deciding to ban the manufacture of heroin was to co-operate in a widespread international effort, to which more than fifty-countries have subscribed, to help to eliminate the abuse of the drug in various parts of the world. Before reaching the decision the Government had taken the advice of the statutory advisory bodies, namely, the standing Medical Advisory Committees in England and Wales and in Scotland.
The Government have, however, been advised that it is not possible under the present law of this country to prohibit the manufacture of heroin. There is no similar legal obstacle in the way of prohibiting the export and import of heroin, and the Government have accordingly decided to prohibit entirely as from 1st January, 1956, exports of this drug to countries outside the British islands, except for such small amounts as may be necessary for scientific purposes only, and all imports.
As regards manufacture, the Government have decided to restrict the manufacture of heroin in this country to the quantities actually required for home medical consumption and scientific use.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is this a permanent decision about manufacture? Was not a statement made by the Government before the Christmas Recess that they proposed to allow manufacture, though not export, for twelve months? Does this

latest decision mean that manufacture is to be permanently permitted?

Major Lloyd-George: As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, the term of the licence is for twelve months in every instance, although there is a clause which enables it to be cut short. Twelve months is the normal period of the licence. The Government will not at present go beyond this period as the licence itself is valid for twelve months. We are in touch with the Medical Research Council to ascertain the feasibility of developing the other substitutes.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Does the Home Secretary's answer mean that the Government have now abandoned the intention of introducing legislation to ban the manufacture of heroin altogether? Does it not appear as if the Government have allowed themselves to be stampeded by the efforts of a minority of medical men who have sought by every means at their disposal to sabotage the Government's original intentions in this matter?

Major Lloyd-George: The Government are quite satisfied at the moment that the prohibition of the export—particularly owing to the very strict control in this country, which allows of no illicit export whatever—will make a very great contribution to the world problem and falls in with the resolution of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, which calls upon countries to prohibit the export of heroin except in the small quantities needed for scientific purposes.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the Home Secretary aware that some of us will be extremely disappointed that the Government have now caved in to what was an organised pressure campaign by a small section of the medical profession, aided by the Editor of The Times? Is he aware of the repercussions that will follow the Government's repudiation of the advice of their Standing Medical Advisory Committee?

Major Lloyd-George: I would not altogether accept that, because, as the hon. Member well knows, to put it mildly this is a slightly controversial matter. I am not anxious to arouse great controversy over a matter of this sort, which is a very difficult one. It would be better for us to proceed as we are doing now,


hoping that as time goes on and the substitutes are more and better known, we shall contribute to this important world problem by the complete banning of the export of heroin under the strict control which obtains in this country.

Mr. Remnant: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend take comfort from the knowledge that a large number of members of the medical profession have found this drug quite indispensable in certain cases, and that his action will result in alleviation of pain which would not otherwise be relieved?

Dr. Summerskill: As it would be a quite simple proposition for somebody to carry a large quantity of heroin on his person, will the Minister's unfortunate compromise not introduce a black market into this country; and, therefore, will it not cost the Government a large amount to administer this new order?

Major Lloyd-George: I do not know exactly what the right hon. Lady means by enabling people to carry large quantities of heroin on their person. I do not know where they will get the large quantities in the first instance. Everybody who has to provide heroin is registered and the quantities that such a person disposes of are known. That is one of the things which makes this control one of the strictest in the world and has made it so successful. Therefore, I have no fears at all about a black market arising, because the source of heroin and its disposal are completely controlled at every stage.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 30TH JANUARY—Debate on Welsh Affairs.
TUESDAY, 31ST JANUARY AND WEDNESDAY, 1ST FEBRUARY—Committee stage of the Housing Subsidies Bill.
THURSDAY, 2ND FEBRUARY—Completion of the Committee stage of the Housing Subsidies Bill.
FRIDAY, 3RD FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Gaitskell: In order that the debate on Welsh affairs should not be unduly restricted, will it take place on the Motion for the Adjournment? Further, can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will find time for a debate on capital punishment, which was promised by the Prime Minister before Christmas?

Mr. Butler: The answer concerning the debate on Welsh affairs is that discussions can certainly take place which should make it possible to have a debate on the Adjournment, if hon. Members opposite so desire, on the understanding, of course, that they avoid discussion of matters involving legislation. If that is desired, it can be arranged. On the subject of capital punishment, I am not in a position to give a definite answer about a debate but I am aware of the requests which have been made in the House on this subject, and I think that discussions should proceed through the usual channels.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the discussion of the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, upstairs, international complications are likely to develop because the Bill has two parts, one for England and one for Scotland, and my hon. Friends from Scotland are expected to discuss the Scottish Clauses on the English Clauses and are not having the opportunity to do so? Will the right hon. Gentleman further consider the proposition that the Bill should be divided into two parts and that the second part should be remitted to the Scottish Grand Committee to be discussed simultaneously with the Bill in the English Committee?

Mr. Butler: This is a matter which has, of course, been considered before, but I can hold out no hope that, the decision having been taken, such a course of remitting the Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee can be adopted. I will, however, be ready to meet the right hon. Gentleman and to consider any difficulties that arise. I realise there has been a great deal of discussion on the Bill, and the sooner we can make progress with it the better.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that past experience shows that it is very difficult to have these two discussions taking place simultaneously in the one Committee and that it would be more satisfactory for everyone


concerned if these matters could be separated in the Committee, with due respect to Scottish rights in the matter, or could be properly governed in the discussions?

Mr. Butler: In my new responsibility, I am aware of the difficulty which has come about and I have already investigated it, but I have found difficulty in going back on the decision already taken. That is why I do not want to delude the House into thinking that there is any easy way out. It is, however, more likely that there will be ample opportunity for Scottish Members to put their points than that there will be a reduced opportunity.

Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Select Committee on the 14-day Rule is likely to be appointed?

Mr. Butler: We have had this under consideration, but I am not in a position to make a statement today. I will make one as soon as I can.

Miss Herbison: May I return to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn)? The Leader of the House has said that it is difficult to go back on the decision taken by his predecessor, but I would point out that that decision was taken before we reached the Committee stage of the Teachers' (Superannuation) Bill. I should like the Leader of the House to have discussion with his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who was in the Committee this morning, to find whether he is altogether satisfied with what happened when Scottish Members attempted to take their part in the discussion during the two and a half hours of debate this morning?
There is a further point for the Leader of the House to consider. His party made it clear in Scotland that the return of a Conservative Government would mean that Scottish matters would be more and more in the hands of Scottish Members. With the decision that was taken before the Committee stage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] This is a most important matter. If the Leader of the House is considering it, as he has kindly said he will, he should consider these points. There are six Scottish Members and these six Members are so far finding that they can take no part in the debate on this Bill. Not only that——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very long question, if, indeed, it was a question at all. It sounded more like a speech.

Mr. S. Silverman: With reference to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the coming debate on capital punishment, will he bear in mind that it seems to be the desire of the House not to have, on this occasion, an academic debate, but a debate leading to some kind of action if the House should so decide? Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind, in fixing the date of the debate, not having it so late as to make legislation impossible this Session, if the House, on consideration, expresses a desire for legislation?

Mr. Butler: I realise that this is a pressing matter about which there are deep feelings on all sides of the House. I will certainly bear the hon. Member's point in mind. In answer to the hon. Lady, I will do as she requests and talk to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary on the situation which has arisen upstairs.

Mr. H. Wilson: In view of the Chancellor's reply on Tuesday, indicating that he could not deal with a number of important economic questions raised by Question and Answer, and that this required a debate, and in view of further Answers in that vein this afternoon from Ministers, would the right hon. Gentleman say how soon the Government intend to have an economic debate, in view of the very great concern about the worsening economic situation?

Mr. Butler: Without entering into the merits of the question, I can say that we certainly have in mind the feeling that a debate should take place at some date. I am not ready to give a definite answer today. I am aware of the Motion which has just appeared on the Order Paper, which I have studied, and I am bearing what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind without giving any definite answer today.
[That this House is gravely concerned at the unprecedented increase in living costs during a period when world prices favour their reduction; declares itself completely opposed to those economic policies pursued by Her Majesty's Government which have been responsible for


this increase, and condemns the Government for the irresponsible manner in which it continues to jeopardise industrial peace in pursuit of partisan ends.]

Mr. Ede: Has the right hon. Gentleman given consideration to the possibility of a debate on the Report of the Select Committee on Elections, dealing with the situation which has arisen in the Mid-Ulster constituency?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, and the Government will have some action to propose on this matter at an early date.

CYPRUS

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I promised yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in reply to Questions by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), to make a statement on Cyprus today.
The recent consultations with the Governor ranged over the many problems of Cyprus, including the talks that he has recently had with Archbishop Makarios, and his discussions with leaders of the Turkish community. In this full exchange of views, Ministers were in complete agreement with the proposals made by the Governor in regard to all aspects of the situation.
The recent discussions with Archbishop Makarios have been of a general nature, in the attempt to find a basis for cooperation. The Governor has endeavoured to clarify certain points which the Archbishop on his side felt to be particularly difficult. The Governor has now reported on these matters to my colleagues and myself, and now that he has returned to Cyprus is arranging a further meeting with the Archbishop.
I cannot, of course, at this stage forecast whether an agreement will be reached, nor will the House expect me to anticipate those discussions by a fuller statement now. I hope to make a further statement soon. Her Majesty's Government, and the Governor, realise the urgent importance, not least for the people of Cyprus, of bringing these talks to an early conclusion.
I can assure the House that Sir John Harding, with the full support of the

Government, has done and will do everything possible in an effort to bring about an agreement and a cessation of violence. I am glad to be able to say that, as a result of the efforts of the security forces, information is improving, which, we hope, will pave the way to further successes against the terrorists.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly asked yesterday about constitutional progress. The talks with the Archbishop have not been concerned with the details of constitutional development in Cyprus, but with finding a general basis for co-operation in its development. The details will require further consultation with representatives of all sections of the community. For this to make progress, violence must end.
I am sure that the House will join with me in expressing the hope that Sir John Harding's patient efforts to reach a basis of agreement and bring an end to violence will meet with a response, which I am sure would be welcomed by the vast majority of the people in the island.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We gather from the Secretary of State's statement, as, indeed, we have gathered from Press reports, that in the discussions which the Governor had with Archbishop Makarios before the Governor returned here for consultations, what they had been discussing was a general formula that would end violence, bring peace back to the island and afford an opportunity, at greater leisure, of discussing and agreeing upon constitutional changes. Would the Secretary of State confirm that, in the discussions to arrive at this general formula of a settlement, before the Governor returned here, agreement was almost reached, and that the differences were very narrow—so narrow that it seemed to us, if what we have heard is true, that now there should be an early settlement?
May I ask the Secretary of State whether in these discussions and consultations which he and the Government have had with the Governor, who has now returned, he has now authorised a complete settlement of these outstanding points, or whether the Governor is sent back with a tied mandate beyond which he cannot go?
Further, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention that the Governor shall resume talks on these outstanding points quickly, and whether


he will keep the House informed as to their progress, because it is the earnest desire on all sides of the House that this matter shall be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible? Since the points, if we are correctly informed, are so narrow, can we hope that a settlement will be very quickly reached?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am glad to say that it is true that as a result of the talks the differences have been narrowed down quite considerably. But I think it would be wrong to regard the differences that remain as only differences of words. They also involve a considerable element of substance. I do not think that it would be conducive to the ironing out of the difficulties if I added further to my statement today, because I know that we all wish well to the further talks that His Excellency will shortly be having.

Mr. Griffiths: As the Secretary of State knows, our desire from the very beginning has been to say nothing and to do nothing which would prevent these negotiations from reaching a settlement, but may I press him to reply to my question? This is very important. Since both sides have made a really serious attempt to come together—and the Archbishop, on his side, has made serious attempts as well as the Governor—may I ask whether the Governor is now authorised to reach a settlement on these outstanding points, or will he need to make further reference back to Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All I can say on that is that the Governor and Her Majesty's Government are in complete agreement as to the next step to take.

Mr. C. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he does not think that the best way of arriving at agreement—because we are all anxious for peace to be restored to this island—would be to make public as quickly as he possibly can the offer? If it is a generous one it might be acceptable to everybody.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have very little doubt that when the time comes for the whole story to be told the wisdom of the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government will become clear to all fair-minded people.

Mr. Brooman-White: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in these negotiations the Government have been keeping in close touch with the views of the Turkish authorities concerned, because it is quite clear that any lasting settlement, which everybody wants to see reached, must be on a tripartite and not only on a bilateral basis?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Governor has had talks with Turkish representative leaders, and throughout all these difficult negotiations Her Majesty's Government have been very conscious of both the existence of Turkish minorities on the island and of the geographical position of Cyprus, which is so close to the shores of Turkey.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Is the Minister aware that on this side of the House very great restraint has been shown? Will he not agree that all of us are hoping that there will be a successful and honourable outcome of the negotiations in Nicosia and that we hope that everything possible will be done not only by Her Majesty's Government but by Archbishop Makarios, the Greek Government and other parties concerned to see that that happens?
Further, may I ask for a categorical assurance that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends have really taken into full consideration the disastrous repercussions throughout the area, and in particular the disastrous damage to British prestige throughout the Middle East and throughout the Arab countries, of a breakdown in the talks and a continuation of violence in Cyprus?
Finally, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that at some times too much responsibility has not been put on the shoulders of Government officials and Governors which should have been taken by himself and his right hon. Friends? Should it be necessary for him to intervene personally at an early date in the negotiations in Nicosia, would he be prepared to do so?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am fully conscious of the restraint shown on all sides of the House during recent months, and all the more so by those people who, like the hon. Member, have considerable personal knowledge of the territories concerned. Our difficulties in the Middle


East do not turn only on settlement in Cyprus, but the settlement in Cyprus is of the first importance. We all recognise that. I would remind the hon. Member that sometimes there are worse things than a breakdown from the point of view of safeguarding vital interests, but throughout we have been conscious of the vital importance of Cyprus to Middle East defence. We have the greatest confidence in the Governor, whose handling of these negotiations has, I think, shown the utmost wisdom and patience.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose——

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we can carry the matter further at this stage.

Mr. K. Robinson: As the Minister said that he was replying to two Questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and myself yesterday, Sir, may I have the opportunity of asking a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. The hon. Member is quite right.

Mr. Robinson: The Minister did not say very much about the situation in

Cyprus. Is he aware that, contrary to some reports, the situation is deteriorating and that this makes it all the more necessary that a solution should be found urgently? May I ask, further, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Governor would give a television broadcast last Monday and, if so, whether he is aware that in the opinion of a number of us that broadcast was not exactly helpful to the general situation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot accept that the situation is deteriorating. Undoubtedly, the security forces are steadily gaining the upper hand. As regards the Governor's television appearance, I thought that it was a singularly successful one.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business and on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) and that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), any such Private Business may be taken after Nine o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — DENTISTS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 16.—(REGISTRATION IN COMMONWEALTH AND FOREIGN LISTS.)

3.54 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: I beg to move, in page 12, line 33, at the end to insert:
(10) If the Privy Council are dissatisfied with the manner in which the General Dental Council are carrying out the provisions of this section, the Privy Council may give such directions as they think fit as to the manner of carrying them out, and it shall be the duty of the General Dental Council to comply with any such directions.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that all the assurances that have been given by the Minister about the registration of foreign dentists shall be carried out in the spirit of those undertakings. I am not casting any aspersions on the future General Dental Council, but I am suggesting that in the interests of the Council itself there should be some means whereby it will be possible for anyone who is dissatisfied with the carrying out of these provisions to bring the position to the notice of the Minister so that it can be considered and, if necessary, put right by the Privy Council.
In Committee and on Second Reading hon. Members expressed the misgivings felt not only by a large number of foreign dentists who have failed to obtain registration in this country, but by a large number of organisations and individuals who are interested in the position. As I said on Second Reading, I do not think that there is any question at all that at least in the late stages of the war and immediately afterwards there was resistance on the part of dentists and doctors to the acceptance of large numbers of foreign practitioners, whatever might have been their qualifications.
Although the Bill seeks to rectify the position which made it impossible for such dentists to become registered on the basis of their previous qualifications and whatever refresher courses and examinations might be provided for in the Bill, there still lingers in the minds of large numbers of people the question of how ready the General Dental Council will be to

warmly welcome them to its register, after being satisfied in accordance with the provisions of the Clause that these people have the appropriate qualifications and have passed the practical examination.
I feel that it would be a very necessary reassurance to these people and those who are interested in their fate that there should be this reserve provision if there should be any doubt that the General Dental Council, whatever its quality, was not carrying out the assurances given on Second Reading and in Committee by the Government. After all. there is nothing in the Bill which insists that the Council should carry out the Minister's assurances as to what he thinks would be done. I hope that there will be an assurance to these people that in the last resort a body, independent of the Council, could review the position and ensure that what has been said in the course of debate will be put in practice.
There is one factor which arises out of this situation and which was mentioned on Second Reading, but not made clear in Committee. It is that, in connection with the practical examination which is to follow, opportunity be given to these foreign dentists to practise in hospital so that they can renew their facility in handling equipment; provision should be made for maintenance grants whilst they are so practising. We have not had a firm assurance from the Government in that respect.
I move the Amendment with the greatest good will and appreciation of the readiness of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee to meet practical and constructive propositions. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will refer to this matter and give us some assurance. This is not a controversial issue and I hope that the Government and the House will be prepared to accept the Amendment which has no effect at all on the General Dental Council but gives the assurance which I have suggested is necessary.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. F. Beswick: I beg to second the Amendment.
During the Second Reading debate, and throughout the different stages of this Bill many sympathetic references have been made to unregistered dentists. There is no doubt that these people are of good


character and of proven professional qualifications and skill. They were all practising dentists until Hitler upset all civilised values on the Continent before the war.
Up to a certain date before the war these refugees were permitted to register and there are about a hundred practising today, their standards being of the highest. If any hon. Member wishes to know why I speak with such assurance on this point it is because my family and myself were treated by one of their number for many years. This dentist had a high reputation in Hamburg before the war, he built up a similar reputation in this country, though, sadly, he has now passed away. If we could give some assurance to those of his colleagues who are still not registered we would give satisfaction to many people and we would be helping ourselves at the same time.
It is agreed by all that some refresher courses will be necessary. We have received assurances that facilities for such refresher training will be provided. Where the doubt arises is in the examination which, it is said, should follow that refresher course. The Parliamentary Secretary made the point that if a person needs a refresher course it is also reasonable to see that the need has been satisfied by the course, and that as a result the standard is brought up to the necessary level.
I accept that point, in which there is much substance, but here we are up against the question as to precisely what examination or test will be applied, and it is on that part that there is a good deal of anxiety. Many hon. Members of this House with professional standards, no doubt of the highest, would, if they were asked to pass an academic examination at their present age, experience similar anxiety. During the Committee stage the Parliamentary Secretary made it clear that the examination should be mainly practical. She went further and said that—
… everything possible should be done to allow anyone who is qualified to the standard reasonably accepted in this country to qualify here and register."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 15th November, 1955; c. 16.]
That seems a fair undertaking, but there remains the doubt about the

examination and the additional doubt, to which my hon. Friend referred, as to whether the assurances given by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister on this point will be observed after the General Dental Council has been established. So the object of this Amendment is to give additional assurance to these people and to make the assurances binding on those concerned.
We are really asking to be assured that the decision as to whether or not these people should be permitted to register should not be decided solely on the basis of one examination or test, even if it is practical. We want all the appropriate circumstances to be taken into consideration; for example, the fact that these people are already holding diplomas which have been accepted in the case of other dentists practising in this country. We want taken into account the record of their previous experience and their general aptitude during the refresher training as well as the practical test which may be applied at the end of it.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister will be able to give those assurances. It will give added weight to the assurances already given in good faith if the Amendment can be accepted.

Mr. Barnett Janner (Leicester, Northwest): I rise to support this Amendment and in no spirit of antagonism to the General Dental Council or to anybody concerned with this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) rightly said that those in professions know well, after having practised for a number of years, that they would now find difficulty in passing examinations for which they sat many years ago. The reason is obvious. There are certain technical points, certain aptitudes for study, which are not as readily available to people who have been practising for years as they are to students.
I would point out, however, that practise is of great importance in a profession and that experience is the main thing. A dental surgeon who has had considerable experience both abroad and here might not be able to pass a test set by so important an organisation as the General Dental Council, which might be rather more exacting about paper work or even practical work than is necessary for dealing satisfactorily with patients.
There are two matters involved. First, there is the question of men and women—I do not know how many there are left, but there are some because I have had requests from such people—who suffered heavily under the Hitler regime. They had built up good practices in their own countries but, through no fault of their own, were driven from them and today they are grateful for the hospitable way in which they have been accepted in our own country.
It is not only a question of earning a livelihood. It is a question of the frustration that comes to people who were high in their professional circles and work in their own countries because they cannot carry on their work and yet are anxious to do something to help the situation in this country, apart from anything else. Sometimes the incredible argument is used that the fact that these people had not sufficient practical experience when they were students should now be taken into consideration. In my view, years of practice are infinitely more important to a professional person than the hours spent qualifying for degrees or diplomas prior to the time when they started to practise their profession. In many cases a man only begins to understand his profession after passing his final examinations. That is when he begins to understand what is needed.
The fact that there are still a number of people who have been refused permission to practise indicates that something must be wrong. Men of experience and holding diplomas of a fairly high standard in their own countries ought not to have been kept out of the dental service. In view of that, and knowing the Minister's good will—because of our experience in other directions, some of us know that he is sympathetically disposed towards those who are in difficulties—and knowing that he wants competent people to have a full opportunity to practise in the profession, I ask him to relieve the distress of these people by accepting an Amendment on the lines of the one which has been moved.
If the Minister thinks that a different provision would meet the case, by all means let him say so. It might even be a help to the General Dental Council to know that its decisions could receive reconsideration at some time, because it realises that it is not entirely omniscient

in these matters. I urge the Minister to consider our proposal favourably and, if possible, to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Stan Awbery: By means of Questions, I have on several occasions during recent years referred to the position of dentists who came from Germany, in particular, during the war or just before it and wished to practise as dentists but were prevented from carrying on their profession in this country. I tried to induce the Minister to allow them to do so, but I was told on almost every occasion that it was necessary to wait for a Bill.
A Bill was prepared in 1950, and the hopes of these people were raised considerably. Then the Government changed, and the Bill was withdrawn, and their hopes were shattered. The present Measure provides a belated opportunity to rectify an injustice which has existed for a large number of years. Although it is belated, it is nevertheless welcome.
The number of people concerned has dropped considerably since I first raised the matter. I understand that there are now in the country only about 30 such people who are fully qualified and possess a German diploma in dentistry equivalent to the qualifications required here. I estimate that our refusal to allow these people to practise has lost us 4 million to 5 million treatments, with the result that the dental health of our people has deteriorated considerably. Some of the people who originally came to this country have since gone abroad because they could not obtain a livelihood here, and some have given up dentistry.
It is almost too late to remedy the effects of our inaction, but I am glad that the Minister is about to do something. I want a definite promise that these people will be dealt with in a human way. In the past, they have been dealt with by the General Dental Council, and they have been turned down for such reasons as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner).
4.15 p.m.
These people, who have been prevented from securing a livelihood, came here to escape a tyranny worse than that of Pharaoh. They came here seeking refuge, believing that this country was the home of freedom and democracy, because


we have always boasted about keeping our doors open for political refugees whether they be kings or paupers. They came here feeling that this was the freeest country in the world. We gave them a very warm welcome, and their faith and 'Confidence in us was great. Crossing the Channel and seeing the white cliffs of Dover they said, "This is our land of Canaan, a land in which we hope to live a life of freedom."
What did they find? They were very warmly welcomed by their friends, but they found that, while we did not deprive them of their lives, we deprived them of the opportunity of earning a livelihood. What is the difference between depriving a man of his life and depriving him of the opportunity to earn a livelihood? What must be the feeling of the thirty men now in this country after their experiences and disappointments here?
Our treatment of these people during the last twenty years has been a blot on our fair name. I am glad that the Bill will do something to wipe out the blot. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the blot will be wiped out, and that it will not be left in the hands of the General Dental Council to put these people through a sieve and to decide, if they cannot pass an examination after having been out of the profession a number of years, that they cannot practise. I want an assurance that if these people hold a German diploma equivalent to the qualifications required in this country they will have an opportunity to practise. I agree that it is necessary for some of them to have a refresher course either in a hospital or with a practising dentist, and I think that they should receive some help towards their maintenance during the short period of the course.
I am afraid that the Bill will transfer responsibility for these people from the House of Commons to the General Dental Council. We know these people, and their qualifications will be known by the General Dental Council, and I want an assurance from the Minister that their qualifications will be accepted after they have had a refresher course. I do not want them to take a further test. It may foe argued that they ought to sit for an examination after having been out of the profession for twenty years. How

would some of our dentists who are now 50, 60, or 70 years old like to sit for an examination? They would find great difficulties and it would be even more difficult for foreign people. It may be argued that the standard in Germany is not high, but I have never heard that argued, because the standard of dentistry in Germany, as with that of many other professions in that country, is very high. Our standard is not beyond criticism. Sir Wilfred Fish, Chairman of the Dental Board of the United Kingdom, has himself condemned our standards in strong terms.
In the Press, about a week ago, I saw reports of speeches referring in eulogistic terms to refugee scientists. When scientists come from the Continent to help us in atomic researches they are welcomed and eulogistic speeches are made about the work they have done. That is mainly in the realm of destruction, scientific preparations for the destruction of human life. We are now dealing with scientists who will help the health and well-being of the people. Why stop them from working for health as others are working in atomic research for weapons of death? We accepted scientists before 1937——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) seems to be going wide of the Amendment. The Clause deals with registration in Commonwealth and foreign lists. Provision is made for that and the purpose of the Amendment is to give the Privy Council supervision over the operation of the Clause. The hon. Member should not bring in the story of refugees, whether scientific or dental. If the hon. Member will direct his argument to the point of the Amendment, I am sure that the House will be much obliged.

Mr. Awbery: The point I was making is that people who are qualified dentists will be deprived of an opportunity of earning their living. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that they will be allowed to practise.

Mr. John Baird: I have every sympathy with the views expressed by all my hon. Friends. Many of these refugee dentists have had a very hard deal indeed. However, we must recognise that at least the Bill goes a long way to meeting the difficulties of those dentists and the House


must also recognise that one cannot allow a foreign dentist to come here, put up his plate and practise dentistry. There must be a body competent to judge whether he is of the standard to be let loose to practise dentistry on the people.
The only ones who can judge that standard are professional people. I should like to know what this discussion has to do with the Amendment. The Amendment simply says that if the General Dental Council does not do the job, the Privy Council can step in and order it to do the job. So far as I know, there is no other registered body, like the General Medical Council, or the Nursing Council, which has had such an Amendment inserted into its constitution.
As the House knows, I have not always been too friendly with my dental colleagues, but with the coming of the Bill 1 believe that the House as a whole has started afresh and that we politicians and the dentists will be friendlier for it. The main purpose of the Bill is to set up a General Dental Council and to give dentists more confidence in themselves and thus to stimulate recruitment. Yet one of the first things we do is to slander the profession by saying that we do not expect its members properly to carry out the job and that we should, therefore, have safeguards to protect foreign dentists. This sounds like a slur and I cannot see the necessity for it.
I am sorry to have used those words, but hon. Members who have spoken have not so far applied themselves to the point of the Amendment at all and I should like them to tell us why it is necessary to have the Amendment, unless they feel that the General Dental Council will not do the job.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): Two points arise from the speeches we have heard. The first is from the general desire of all hon. Members that everything possible should be done to make it practical and possible for foreign dentists who are qualified to the standard required in this country to register on the General Dental Register. That is fully supported by both sides of the House. In Committee and on Second Reading assurances were given that it was the intention that provision should be made for refresher courses and the like

so that people in that category could so qualify, if they had the ability.
The main part of the Amendment deals with the method, and I must agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) when he suggests that however charmingly put, and however Members may deny any slur on the new General Dental Council, there is in the Amendment an implied criticism of the Council's integrity and a suggestion that there will be a bias on the part of the Council in carrying out the duties imposed upon it. We have to recognise that the Bill gives the dental profession autonomy and self-government for the first time, very much in parallel with the autonomy enjoyed by the medical and legal professions.
I should like to know what the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) would say if, when a lawyer wanted to practise in this country, the decision was made by a body other than the Law Society. What would the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) say if a certificate of proficiency in a craft were decided by people outside that craft?

Mr. Janner: The hon. Lady has drawn my attention to the fact that the various councils of various professions are sacrosanct. Is she aware the whole reason for the Amendment was that the General Medical Council would not allow people to become dentists at a time when they would have been and could have been very usefully employed?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Perhaps the hon. Member will read the Bill. Its whole purpose is to give the General Dental Council permission to include them. The very essence of this Clause is to enable those people who can so qualify to be included within the lists. It would be a very grave reflection on this new and autonomous body if we were to suggest that its members were not as qualified to judge in their own profession as the members of other great professions and if we were to say, "You can judge English, Scots, Irish and Welsh, but not foreigners." That would be a reflection on the members of the General Dental Council which I am sure they would resent.
To deal with the points raised and to give further assurances, if they be needed.
regarding what will be the position of those who will apply to be registered, particularly German dentists, who have hitherto not been accepted on the register, I want to make clear one point which has been misunderstood in some quarters. It is not true that all foreign dentists are banned. Certain foreign qualifications are recognised as being of a sufficiently high standard to render admission to the General Dental Register permissible.
4.30 p.m.
There remains the comparatively small number of dentists—mainly those in which hon. Members are so interested—who have foreign diplomas which have not been considered to provide a sufficient guarantee of the holder's ability to practise dentistry in this country. In some cases it has been difficult for the Dental Board or the General Medical Council to obtain details of their training and qualifications. Under this Bill, provision has been made—we understand by refresher courses if necessary, and by a test which we believe will be mainly practical—to enable dentists to establish to the satisfaction of the profession that they have the requisite knowledge and skill. It leaves the decision as to the precise nature of that examination and refresher course in the hands of the General Dental Council, but that is comparable with the practice followed in like professions.
I find myself in some difficulty in meeting the rival requests made by hon. Members who have been pressing the claims of these foreign dentists. Many hon. Members pressed for a practical refresher course. During the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage we gave an assurance that we believed that this was the intention of the Council—and, indeed, it would certainly be made known to the Council that it was the wish of this House. Hon. Members have also asked that after the practical test there should not be any further test.
Even more than the position of these dentists, I think we have to consider the patient. No one has mentioned the patient in this debate.

Mr. Baird: I mentioned it.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I apologise to the hon. Member.
We have to be practical about this. The hon. Gentleman mentioned people who have not practised for twenty years; people who were 50 years of age when they came to this country. It may well be—sad though it is—that someone who is now rising 70 and who has not practised for twenty years will not be able to regain his dexterity. It is not only a matter of learning from textbooks, it is also a question of the dexterity of a dentist. It may well be that there will be dentists who are not able to pass a practical test and we must face that possibility.

Mr. Awbery: Could not that be determined by the refresher course, or by their spending a short time with a practising dentist?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Rival requests have been made. Some hon. Members want a refresher course so that these people can get "up to scratch" and regain their dexterity before anyone tests them. Others want the refresher course to be taken as the test, which might be a reflection on someone who is unlikely to regain his dexterity. We must take a practical view of this difficult problem.
I assure the House that, following our negotiations with those whom we presume will ultimately form the membership of the General Dental Council, we believe that they have a sincere desire—accentuated by their realisation of the acute shortage of dentists—to enrol any dentist who can satisfy them that he has skill worthy of the standard which we require in the dental service. I do not think it fair to ask them to go beyond that, or to suggest that automatically, people who have not practised for years should, because they held a diploma fifteen years ago, be put on the Register when they may have lost their skill and may not reach present day standards.
I think that many of these people will qualify, but it would be over-optimistic to think that all will. We must remember that these new provisions make it possible for foreign dentists with all types and kinds of qualifications, to apply to come on the Register in addition to those whose welfare hon. Members have so much at heart.

Mr. Beswick: The hon. Lady referred to foreign dentists, but she might like to


be reminded that the people we have in mind are, in fact, British citizens with foreign diplomas.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The Regulations cover not only those who have acquired British nationality, but those foreign dentists who have come to this country and wish to practise. There may be some who will in the future establish British citizenship and wish to practise, having originally acquired foreign degrees or diplomas.
To accept this Amendment would be an affront to the newly established autonomy of the Council. It would put it in a position not comparable with the councils of other professions. Surely, in the last resort only professional people qualified to do so can judge the standard which, after all, they enforce on every British dentist who qualifies to go on the Register. I am sure that the Council will treat these applications sympathetically and that facilities will be provided for the three months' practical training or refresher course, if it is applied for and required. In the hope that the new Council will feel that it has been fairly treated by the House and that no aspersion has been cast on its ability to judge in this matter, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Coldrick: I support this Amendment because I believe it wrong for the House to select a small body of professional people and grant to them special provisions and power which we are not prepared to grant to other people. I am amazed to hear the Parliamentary Secretary speaking so eloquently on behalf of a small professional body when, presumably in common with other hon. Members opposite, she would fulminate against a number of bummarees trying to exercise far more limited powers than those which are sought here so far as the Dental Council is concerned.
I am bitterly opposed to this form of snobbishness which confers on professional people a power to determine certain things which we are not prepared to accord to others. While we are all in favour of laying down the highest possible standards of professional skill for dentists, I do not think we should allow people engaged in the profession to be their own judge, jury and everything else. Instead of the Privy Council being accorded this

privilege, I believe it to be one which should be exercised by the Minister.
In other industries we reserve the right of the Minister to issue general directions and I cannot see why we should not limit the power of this body in order that they should be over-ridden, provided the Privy Council deems that an injustice is being done. I am therefore prepared to support the Amendment, which will curtail their power and safeguard the general interest.

Sir Frederick Messer: I am jealous of the authority of a registering body. Probably—I hope at no far distant date—we may be considering regulations to do with the registration of medical auxiliaries. I hold the view that the profession should have a considerable say in the determination of the type of people and the standard which the professional must attain in order to be registered. We cannot expect a body such as a registering authority to be able to carry out its work if it feels that behind it there is another body who can at any time question its right to do so.
That does not mean that I oppose the arguments which have been adduced. I am in favour of an easier access to the register than has been noticeable in the past. We must remember that the registering body for dentists was formerly the General Medical Council, which was very largely inhibited, because it was afraid that it might accept too broad a standard, which the dentists would not like. The Bill gives responsibility to the dentists, but it is not true to say that the General Dental Council is composed entirely of dentists. There is to be university representation, for educational purposes, and there will also be laymen who represent no special interest.
I should be glad of an assurance that a more generous attitude will be shown towards the possession of foreign diplomas and degrees, although I appreciate that, simply because we wish to help certain foreigners, we cannot allow an inferior standard to receive recognition on the register. If that problem can be overcome there will not be anything dividing the House. There is no reason why the argument put forward in respect of the Dental Council with regard to registration should not be accepted in regard to the General Medical Council


—and if such a provision were applied to that body the consequences would be powerful.

Mr. J. Hynd: I am rather disappointed with the Parliamentary Secretary's statement and with the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird). I was hoping that the Amendment might be accepted, thereby providing a reaffirmation of the assurance already given by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend say that because this provision has not been embodied in previous legislation it cannot possibly be considered in relation to any new legislation. If we work on that principle we may go right back to the Star Chamber. We shall not get very far forward.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) has Just said. this provision might be applied to the General Medical Council and other similar bodies. I do not think that there would be any objection on the part of the Council if an opportunity were provided of reviewing its constitution, but we are now considering a new legislative Measure and there is every reason why, in doing so, we should be able to benefit from the experience of the past.
I also object to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement—which was agreed to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East—that this may be considered as some kind of reproach to the future General Dental Council. It will be nothing of the sort—or, if it is, the whole Bill is, because it consists of about thirty pages of instructions telling the Council what it may and may not do, and under what conditions. The Bill provides for appeals, under certain conditions, and I do not see why that should be resented, because we are handing to this new Dental Council a very high responsibility and giving it a very honourable position in the professional world. No responsible professional man could have any objection to it being made clear that if an individual felt aggrieved at the ruling of the Council he could follow a line of appeal.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Amendment would be an affront to

the Council. The wording of the Amendment is copied from an Amendment by the Minister himself in page 17, line 24, in relation to Clause 20 which says:
If the Privy Council are dissatisfied with the manner in which the General Dental Council are carrying out
certain obligations, it will be able to give directions to the Council. It is too bad for the Parliamentary Secretary to attack the Amendment on the ground that she has when its wording is taken from the Minister's Amendment to another part of the Bill. If the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment at this stage, I hope that note will be taken of what has been said in this debate when the Bill reaches its further stages. The terms of the Amendment might be improved, but an Amendment on similar lines should be provided in order to reassure everybody that there is to be fair play all round.

Mr. Beswick: One advantage of the Amendment——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has already spoken.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 18.—(POWER OF COUNCIL TO CREATE CLASSES OF ANCILLARY DENTAL WORKERS.)

4.45 p.m.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I beg to move, in page 13, line 42, to leave out "professional."
The object of the Amendment is to omit the word "professional" in describing the status and qualifications of ancillary workers. This matter was discussed in Committee and the manuscript Amendment which was about to be put in was out of time. There was agreement on both sides that the Amendment would be put forward by the Government on Report.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20.—(DUTY TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EXPERIMENTAL SCHEME.)

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I beg to move, in page 16, line 13, to leave out subsection (1) and insert:
(1) It shall be the duty of the General Dental Council with all reasonable expedition to carry out, by means of the arrangements hereinafter mentioned, an experiment to determine the


value to the community of a class of ancillary dental workers—

(a) permitted to undertake the filling of teeth and the extraction of deciduous teeth, and
(b) employed to do work of that kind in the course of the provision of national and local authority health services.

During the Committee stage the Minister gave an undertaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) that he would introduce an Amendment by which the primary duty for carrying out the experiments for ancillary workers or others was placed upon the General Dental Council, and the Privy Council should intervene only if it thought that the Dental Council had failed to carry out the statutory duty imposed upon it. There is a clear division between the statutory functions of an autonomous body in relation to the training, education and registration of its own members and duties such as this experiment and we are reasonably entitled to provide an additional assurance that such duties will be expeditiously carried out.
The two cases are not parallel in any way. The original draft of the Bill provided that the Privy Council should initiate the experiment
by requiring the General Dental Council to carry out the scheme.
At the request of representations made during the Committee stage the Government have brought forward the Amendment which now places the initiative for carrying out this experiment upon the General Dental Council. It was felt that this would give the new Council the opportunity to be the prime movers in this experiment and, at the same time, a time limit would be imposed by the Privy Council requiring that it should be carried out with all reasonable expedition.
In the very unlikely event of the Dental Council not complying with the obligations placed upon it by Parliament then, and only then, if the Privy Council was dissatisfied with the manner in which the Dental Council was proceeding with the experiment, it could give what directions it thought fit, and the Council would have to comply with them. This is a matter of balance. Originally, the experiment was to be initiated by the Privy Council, but during the Committee stage my right hon. Friend gave an undertaking that he

would transfer the emphasis and give the Dental Council the opportunity to initiate and take responsibility for the experiment, with the proviso that if the Privy Council was dissatisfied with the Dental Council's progress in the matter it could finally require the Dental Council to comply with certain directions. I think that the Amendment fulfils the promise made by my right hon. Friend during the Committee stage and I hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. Richard Fort: My hon. Friend has quite correctly said that the Amendment has been moved in accordance with an undertaking given by the Government to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), who, unfortunately, is not able to be here today. I shall be representing the viewpoint of the British Medical Council as he did during the Committee stage.
The difficulty is the carrying out of that undertaking introduces a method of administration which might in certain circumstances be extremely difficult. It lays down that after the General Dental Council has initiated an experiment the Privy Council will have the right to express its dissatisfaction and, presumably, to order the Dental Council to start all over again. It would be much more desirable to have the discussion between the Privy Council and the Dental Council before the experiment starts rather than afterwards. That would save time and money and perhaps a good deal of irritation.
The British Dental Council feels that in carrying out the undertaking my right hon. Friend has made the Clause much less important than it was originally, from a prestige point of view. I wonder whether he could consider withdrawing the Amendment and allowing the Clause to revert to the original drafting, which put the onus of initiating experiments upon the Privy Council, in consultation with the British Dental Council, which, I am sure, would be administratively a better way. In any case, it would be more in keeping with the feelings about prestige that the British Dental Council have in this matter.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: The House will recall that in Committee my concern was that nobody should drag


his feet. I am anxious that the experiment should be initiated forthwith. I take it that the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) has consulted the dentists about his suggestion. My hon. Friends who represent dentists would also feel happy if the Minister acceded to the request that has just been made. I am concerned that there should be no delay in dealing with this matter, and we must trust the Minister to keep his hand on it and do the requisite prodding in the right direction.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Turton): This is a surprising development. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) asked that this Amendment be tabled because he was not satisfied with the original wording. Now my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) says that he is satisfied with the original wording and does not like the Amendment which we have tabled.
The hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) suggested some form of words like those in the proposed new subsections (7) and (8) to secure expedition. For that reason we included that form of words which, I may add, is quite different from the type of intervention we were discussing a few minutes ago. That would have been intervention to deal with the discipline of the profession while this is to secure that a professional body makes due progress towards an experiment.
In view of the unanimity on both sides that the Bill in its original form, as passed in Committee, is better than with this Amendment, I suggest that the Amendment be withdrawn.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The next Amendment in the name of the Minister, in page 17, line 24, to insert new subsections (7) and (8), falls with the one that has been withdrawn.

Clause 24.—(RESTRICTIONS ON BODIES CORPORATE.)

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 19, line 3, at the end to insert:
nor a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1954.

When I examined what had gone on in the Committee, I noted with close attention the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram). I was most anxious to meet their point of view. I am not by nature one who enjoys banning things, especially banning bodies that have high ethical and professional standards. I considered whether we could provide some way of achieving their object and at the same time securing those high ethical professional standards.
My attention was drawn to Section 10 (1) of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939, which empowers the Registrar of Industrial and Provident Societies to remove from the Register societies which do not comply with its strict requirements. It appeared to me that there was a safeguard that could be exercised to secure that either a bona-fide co-operative society or a philanthropic dental society carrying on its work to the satisfaction of all concerned would have its position safeguarded.
I would refer hon. Gentlemen to that section. The Registrar can register a society if he is satisfied

"(a) that the society is a bona-fide co-operative society, or
(b) that … the business of the society is being, or is intended to be, conducted—

(i) mainly for the purpose of improving the conditions of living, or otherwise promoting the social well-being, of members of the working classes, or
(ii) otherwise for the benefit of the community."

He can remove from the Register any society that is not complying with those conditions. It is important when conferring these benefits to do so fairly to all newcomers who can pass the requisite high professional and ethical standards.
If the Co-operative Dental Association wanted to extend into Scotland it would not perhaps be a proper solution for it to do so merely by amalgamation. I know that there is among Scottish Members a high national pride. They might not like the invasion of the Co-operative Dental Association into their territory and might prefer to start a new body on their own. If they did, that would be possible, under the terms of the Amendment which I am moving.
5.0 p.m.
I have said that J am not keen on monopolies, and if we allow one body that comes under Section 10 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939, it is only fair to allow other philanthropic bodies if they are able to satisfy the very strict tests of that Section. I say that because after I had tabled this Amendment—which was intended to meet the point of view of the hon. Member for Oxbridge—I was surprised to find that he had tabled an Amendment which seeks so to limit the purpose of mine that only the bona-fide co-operative society would have the advantage and the other bodies covered by Section 10 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act would be excluded.
I hope that on reconsideration the hon. Member will not move his Amendment, because my purpose is to find a satisfactory solution. During the Committee stage he himself said that he did not seek a monopoly for the Co-operative Dental Association, and I had hoped that he would, therefore, have supported my Amendment. That which he originally put down was very similar to mine but, as he will recollect, the wording did not fit into the Bill. I think it started with the word "to" and would not, therefore, have been in order.
We have no wish to make it any easier for those organisations and bodies which. since 1946, have operated to the detriment of the professional and ethical standards which we are trying to maintain. As my right hon. predecessor told the House and the Committee, there has been clear evidence that the standards of the dental companies have been much lower that those observed by both the professional dentists and by the Co-operative Dental Association. This Amendment will not make it any easier for any such new company to carry on. Such bodies, I am advised, would not pass the very strict standards laid down by the Registrar. For those reasons, I hope that the House will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The next Amendment to the Amendment proposed, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), is really a limiting Amendment. I am quite willing to call for a Division, but I think that the debate should be on the Amendment

proposed. That would not limit discussion.

Mr. Beswick: I agree that it may be more for the convenience of the House if I speak to the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman. First, I should like to thank him for the generous spirit he has shown to the views which we expressed during the Committee stage. I quibble only about one minor matter-cur original Amendment actually started with the word "or" and not "to," and would, therefore, have fitted into the Bill. That, however, does not detract from what the Minister has said.
As the right hon. Gentleman has said, we sought during the Committee stage to omit Clause 24 altogether and the complete ban which went with that Clause on the institution of new corporate bodies in the field of dentistry. We felt that that prohibition was far too wide. We quoted as an example a particular co-operative association which the Minister's predecessor himself had shown as having a professional standard higher than that of the average private practitioners.
Such an organisation would in future have been prevented from offering the public a dental service. The difficulty was that although the Minister accepted our argument that, as it stood, Clause 24 kept out the good as well as the bad concerns, he was unable to accept our original Amendment because that would have let in the bad as well as the good, and he told us just how bad some of the bad organisations were.
We took very much to heart the warnings of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and it was in an endeavour to get a form of words which was more selective and discriminating that we put down our subsequent Amendment, and the Amendment to that proposed by the Minister. If the Minster assures us that the form of words which we originally put forward—and which he now advances as an Amendment of his own—is sufficiently adequate to keep out those undesirable elements previously referred to, we shall be very happy to accept it. We appreciate the sympathy with which he has read what we had to say during the Committee stage. I will not move my Amendment, but will, instead, accept the right hon. Gentleman's.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25.—(EXEMPTIONS.)

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 20, line 40, at the beginning to insert:
(1) Where a registered dentist or a registered medical practitioner who died before the coming into force of section twenty-three of this Act was at his death carrying on a business or practice constituting the business of dentistry, neither that section nor section five of the Dentists Act, 1921, shall operate to prevent—

(a) his personal representatives or any of his children or trustees on behalf of any of his children from carrying on the business of dentistry in continuance of that business or practice during the three years beginning with the coming into force of the said section twenty-three, or
(b)his widow or trustees on behalf of his widow from carrying on the business of dentistry in continuance of that business or practice at any time during her life.

This is purely a drafting Amendment, as I hope the House will appreciate. When moving an Amendment to this Clause my predecessor said that it might require tidying up, and there is, in fact, a loophole at present in Clause 25 which I will explain quite briefly.
It will be seen that subsection (1) permits the personal representatives of a dentist or his widow or any of his children or trustees to carry on
… the business of dentistry in continuance of that business or practice during the three years beginning with his death or, if he died before the date of the coming into force of this section, at any time more than three years after his death.
As drafted, that would mean that the widow could first carry on the practice and that then the children could do so. That was not the intention when my predecessor first drafted this Bill.
What we are trying to do by the Amendment is to make it clear that if a dentist dies between the date of the introduction of the Bill and the coming into force of Clause 23, then his widow shall be allowed to carry on the business during her life, but that same licence shall not subsequently be granted to the children, because there seems to be no good reason why that should happen.

Mr. Baird: Under the Bill, the position is that a widow can carry on the practice of a dentist who dies before the Act comes into force. She will be allowed to carry on for the rest of her lifetime, and her children after her. I think the intention of the Amendment is to tighten the provisions so that while she could carry on

the practice during her lifetime, at her death her ownership of the practice would cease and it must be sold.

Mr. Turton: That amounts to the same position. As the Bill is drafted at present, not only would the widow have the practice during her lifetime but it would also be possible for her children to carry it on. I was explaining, I fear very inadequately, that what we are trying to do is to provide that the widow should have power to carry on the practice during her life but that her children should not have the power to carry it on afterwards.
There are certain consequential Amendments which are of a drafting nature. They are in page 20, line 41; in page 20, line 42; in page 21, line 3; and in page 21, line 15. I am satisfied that these Amendments make the position quite watertight, and that the drafting is better than in the original Bill. The original drafting contains the loophole which I have mentioned.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 20, line 41, after "practitioner" insert:
who dies after the coming into force of section twenty-three of this Act.

In line 42, leave out "section twenty-three of this Act" and insert "that section."

In page 21, line 3, leave out from "death" to end of line 5.

In line 15, leave out from "of" to end of line 16 and insert:
section twenty-three of this Act, during the three years beginning with that date".—[Mr. Turton.]

Clause 29.—(USE BY DENTISTS OF TITLES AND DESCRIPTIONS.)

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I beg to move, in page 23, to leave out lines 13 to 17.
The two subsequent Amendments on the Order Paper are consequential.
The Amendment has been put down to meet points raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead). It was suggested that a matter of this kind, concerning foreign diplomas and additional diplomas to be entered in the register, should not be solely a decision for the registrar. It was said that there might be occasions when it would be an invidious and difficult decision to make. My hon. Friend suggested that it should be made by the


General Dental Council. That was felt to be too unwieldly a procedure. My right hon. Friend offered to look into the matter, and we believe that this Amendment is a practical compromise in that the registrar will be required to make his decision in consultation with the President of the General Dental Council before selecting the abbreviated form denoting an additional diploma to be entered in the General Dental Register.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Would the Minister be good enough to expand her explanation a little? I can see no reason for which a British or foreign dentist who has a medical qualification and proposes to practise as a dentist—as many do—should not make use of that qualification and register it. I cannot see what objection there can be. I recall that there was a good deal of discussion about it in Committee but I did not realise that a decision on these lines had been taken and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain to me a little more fully the reason for the decision which she now asks us to make.

Mr. Turton: I think that this point is clear. The effect of the Amendment is to leave out lines 13 to 17. This will put the position back to what it is under Section 4 of the Dentists Act, 1921. I remember those painful occasions when I have had to visit my dentist. He used to have, and I think he still has, a medical qualification which he advertises. He does that under Section 4 of the Dentists Act, 1921. That seems to be perfectly satisfactory.
I understand that there was a certain amount of argument between the two professions as to what was meant by the original words in Clause 29. I thought, in view of that, that the best thing was to leave the form of words which we have in Section 4 of the 1921 Act, which has always been perfectly clear and perfectly well understood. I hope that for these reasons the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) will accept this minor Amendment, which I believe has the approval of both professional bodies.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 23, line 35, leave out "appears to."

In line 35, leave out "to be" and insert:

after consultation with the President of the General Dental Council may select as being."—[Mr. Turton.]

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(THE GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL AND ITS COMMITTEES.)

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I beg to move, in page 27, line 9, to leave out "sixteen" and insert "eighteen."
With the Amendment go the Amendments in page 27, line 14; in page 28, line 4; and in page 28, line 5. Together they give effect to the Minister's undertaking in Committee to increase the number of elected representatives to the General Dental Council from nine to eleven and to provide that the two extra members shall be elected by the dentists whose addresses in the register are in England, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, thus increasing the total number to be so selected from five to seven.
This matter was very fully discussed in Committee when representations were made on behalf of the British Dental Association. The Amendment goes all the way to carry out my right hon. Friend's undertaking to increase, by Amendment at this stage, the representation of the general practitioners' side by two. We feel it most important that this should be done without disturbing the all-important representation on a professional body of this kind of those from the dental faculties and the teaching side who have the greatest experience in the education and training of members of the profession.
I should point out at this stage that, although the two additional members come from England, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, the total representation for 12,500 dentists in England and Wales will be seven; for 1,700 dentists in Scotland, two; for 558 in Northern Ireland, one; and, for 617 in Wales, one. I think it fair to say that hon. Members who are so zealous about proportional representation will find that on a proportionate basis England is far worse off than anywhere else. I hope that hon. Members will accept the Amendment, which will give two additional representatives on the Council to the general practitioner side.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) in line 9.
to leave out "sixteen" and to insert "seventeen," falls.
Further Amendment made: In page 27, line 14, leave out "nine" and insert "eleven."—[Mr. Turton.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), in line 18, to leave out "three" and insert "four," also falls.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The purpose of my Amendment is to ensure that there shall be one lay member representing Wales on the Council. That is the purpose of my three Amendments, two of which are consequential. The Amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to line 9, with which we have just dealt, does not make for that arrangement.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps I am wrong, but I understood that if "eleven" stood part the next Amendment fell. I think that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey, in line 18, to leave out "three" and to insert "four" is in order, and he should now move it.

Mr. C. Hughes: I beg to move, in page 27, line 9, to leave out "sixteen" and insert "seventeen."
It would be for the convenience of the House if the three Amendments in my name were taken together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now moving the Amendment about which there is some confusion. I invited him to move the second Amendment in his name, which is to leave out "three" and insert "four". I think the trouble would be that the mathematics do not work out. To save confusion, perhaps the Minister could assist me. Does the proposed Amendment to line 19, after "England" to leave out "and" and insert "one for" fall, or does it not?

Mr. Turton: I am afraid that mathematically it falls. From every point of view I should like to help, but I am afraid that the mathematics would not allow of an additional member.

Mr. James Griffiths: If there are to be additional members, does not

that make it easier for the Minister to concede the point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey? Would the Minister not agree to consider that one of the additional members should be from Wales?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Of course the Minister cannot go back on what the House has agreed to.

Mr. Turton: I am only concerned with order and the mathematics of the question. There were originally sixteen members, and the Bill prescribed their division. We have now agreed to raise the total number to eighteen, and the figure of nine to eleven; and, therefore, we have provided for all eighteen members. It would not be possible within the rules of order, in my submission, to increase the "three" to "four" in line 18, as suggested by the hon. Member for Anglesey.

Mr. Leslie Hale: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: May I answer one point at a time? The total is eighteen, and this proposal would go beyond that number.

Mr. Baird: On a point of order. We have not yet decided whether we are to nominate a member for Northern Ireland. We might want to leave that out and to include a member for Wales. We have to consider paragraph (d) in regard to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is no Amendment on the Order Paper about that.

Mr. Hale: An important Parliamentary point has been raised. It has always been the rule of the House, even on Report stage, that an Amendment could not be ruled out of order merely because something which has not been discussed is dealt with by Amendments on the Order Paper. I suggest that it would be technically in order for a manuscript Amendment to be accepted to rectify the difficulty about Northern Ireland in paragraph (d) as at the moment we are discussing paragraph (c).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I could not accept a manuscript Amendment. I think the problem is simplified as the


arithmetic does not work out correctly. Certainly an Amendment which does not make sense is not in order.

Dr. Summerskill: If an Amendment does not make sense is it not the rule in this House that an hon. Member should be warned of that? When you rise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and tell us which Amendments you are going to call, I think it is customary to warn an hon. Member that his Amendment will not be called precisely for the reason that it does not make sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) is very anxious for Wales to have greater representation. It happens that because his addition or his subtraction—or that of Mr. Deputy-Speaker—has not been correct he is not to have an opportunity of putting his argument. An occasion of this kind does not often arise. Therefore, I would ask you to exercise a little compassion and allow my hon. Friend to put this point and ask the Minister whether, under the circumstances, he could not so adjust the figures that the Amendment could be accepted.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am very sorry of there has been any confusion, but I am only deputising. Had this happened in Committee we should probably have found a way out, but on this occasion I arrived here only an hour or so ago and this was put into my hand. I beg the hon. Member's pardon if he has not been warned. We cannot go back on what has been decided. I understand that the Government are likely to move the Third Reading immediately after Report stage. This point could be raised then.

Mr. Baird: I am not an expert on procedure, but as I see it we have not yet agreed to accept the Amendment in the name of the Minister, in page 28, line 4, to leave out "nine" and insert "eleven." Surely my hon. Friend could object and raise this question then?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I gather these Amendments are consequential on the one that we have just agreed to.

Mr. J. Griffiths: There is the Amendment, in page 28, line 4, to leave out "nine" and insert "eleven," and the following Amendment, in line 5, to leave out "five" and insert "seven." Would it be in order for my hon. Friend to move his Amendment then?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Those are consequential Amendments to the Amendment to which we have agreed.

Mr. Griffiths: They may be consequential, but the House has a right of rejecting or accepting them, and my hon. Friend would have the opportunity of debate.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that that would overcome the difficulty. It is not usually done, but it would seem to meet the point.

Mr. Hale: It would be unfortunate if the Ruling went forth from the Chair that Bills had to make sense. If that were so, every Measure introduced by Her Majesty's present advisers would be out of order in toto.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may very likely be true—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but that is not what I said. I said that any Amendment that would be called must make sense, and it would be my responsibility to see that it did make sense. I do not draft Bills.
The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), in page 27, line 19, after "England," to leave out "and" and insert "one for" falls.
Amendment proposed: In page 28, line 4, leave out "nine" and insert"eleven."—[Mr. Turton.]

Mr. C. Hughes: I placed my Amendments on the Order Paper before the Christmas Recess and before I knew that the Minister proposed to change the arithmetic of the composition of the General Dental Council. The point I had in mind is not covered by the Amendment which was moved by the Parliamentary Secretary. The House will observe in paragraph 2 (2, c) of the Schedule that three lay members representing England and Wales and Scotland are to be nominated. There are to be only two for England and Wales. My submission is that, as the hon. Lady has already suggested, the representation for England is not very great. England will have those two members and, therefore, Wales will not have a lay member on the General Dental Council.
In paragraph 3 (3, b) we see that the dentists of Wales are to have one representative. The dentists of Northern Ireland are to have one representative, Scotland is to have two and five are to be elected by the dentists of England, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. In other words, Wales is treated in one way in paragraph 2 (2, c), and in another way in paragraph 3 (3, b)
That is to the disadvantage of the Principality, and I see no reason why Wales should be treated differently from Northern Ireland and Scotland. We have no guarantee whatever that under the Schedule we shall have more than one representative on the General Dental Council, and he will be a dentist. We shall not have a lay representative because the weighting will, obviously, be in favour of England. My Amendment sought to give Wales one lay member in the terms of paragraph 2 (2, c). I thought that that was a very reasonable suggestion. When we were discussing the matter upstairs in Committee the then Minister, who is now Minister of Labour, was good enough to say that he would look at it before Report, but apparently the matter has not been looked at. I am extremely disappointed.
There will be considerable feeling about this matter in the Principality, for I see absolutely no argument against having one Welsh lay representative. The former Minister said in Committee that there was no dental school in Wales. I cannot see what that has to do with this matter. What we want is equitable representation on the General Dental Council, and I fail to see why the Government cannot give it to us. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider the point and, perhaps, to propose a manuscript Amendment to meet it.

Mr. Turton: There is every sympathy with the Welsh point of view, but I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) that Wales is being amply provided for. The hon. Member referred to paragraph 3 (3), which deals with dentists. It is quite clear that on a population basis Wales is getting a higher proportion of representatives of the dentists.

Mr. Hughes: How is that?

Mr. Turton: That point was dealt with on another Amendment. Taking into account the number of dentists, Wales is getting a higher proportion than England of the number of dentists on the Council.

Mr. Hughes: It is not higher than Northern Ireland.

Mr. Turton: No, but compared with England, Wales is getting a greater advantage.
Next, we come to the point concerning dental schools. We hope there will come a time, in the not distant future, when Cardiff University will have its dental school. Then, it will get its representative under paragraph 2 of the Schedule.
Thirdly, there is the question of the lay representatives. On the General Medical Council, there are three lay representatives out of forty-seven. The General Dental Council will have thirty-five members. It would be unreasonable to suggest that the lay representation should be larger than on the General Medical Council. That is why I should have been averse to accepting an Amendment to line 18 increasing the number from three to four.
I am certainly anxious to follow the undertaking given by my predecessor in Standing Committee, when he said:
I will consider the point about Welsh representation … and even if I do not find it possible to alter the balance, I am quite certain that the Privy Council and those who advise it when it is selecting the members will take notice of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd November, 1955; c. 115.]
That means that the Privy Council, under paragraph 2 (2, c), will have to select three laymen, two of whom will be chosen for England and Wales. It could happen that both of those who were chosen were Welshmen; it might be that one was Welsh and one English, or two English and none Welsh. We will choose the best people for the job, whatever their nationality. That is the assurance that I give to the hon. Member tor Anglesey.
The hon. Member asked why Scotland was to be treated differently. The reason why Scotland will have a representative is not that there are more Scots than Welsh, but that the National Health Service in Scotland is quite distinct from the English Health Service. The two lay members are to represent the English Health Service——

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Minister means that Scotland is distinct from England in administration. But the Health Service is also distinct in its administration in Wales, for hospital and other purposes.

Mr. Turton: The point is that at present, one Minister deals with administration in England and in Wales——

Mr. Griffiths: It is one Health Service. It is true that because the Secretary of State for Scotland is also the Health Minister, he has Ministerial responsibility. For administrative purposes, the services of the National Health Service Act in Wales and Monmouthshire are under one administration for the Principality as such.

Mr. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman should know the Acts, because they were passed in the time of the Labour Government. There is a separate National Health Service Act for Scotland. For that reason, it is necessary, when setting up a General Dental Council, to have a separate lay representative for Scotland.

Mr. Griffiths: Where does Northern Ireland come in? It is not covered by our National Health Service. The Minister argues that Scotland should have separate representation because for constitutional reasons it has a separate Health Service Act; but Northern Ireland does not have a separate Act. Why, therefore, select Northern Ireland and leave out Wales?

Mr. Turton: Northern Ireland has a separate Parliament. The Northern Ireland dentists come on to the Register. For that reason, they have to be included in paragraph 3 (3, d). Because they are on the Register, the General Dental Council will look after their professional interests and discipline them. Therefore, there should be a lay representative for Northern Ireland. England and Wales, however, come under the same National Health Service Act. Because of Welsh importance and English importance, we are suggesting two members for them. I ask not to be fettered in my choice of the best people. I want to have the best lay members on this Council.

Mr. W. R. Williams: If Welsh people want more representatives then they must go on with their claim for a separate Parliament for Wales.

Mr. Turton: That does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I should like to support the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), not so much on the claim for Wales as on the claim for England in this matter. The Minister's reasons for not doing anything to help my hon. Friend have not been convincing. He suggested that he did not want to see the total of lay representatives in paragraph 2 (2, c) increased from three to four and, therefore, of course, the total of lay representatives increased from four to five, with the member for Northern Ireland, because thatwould make the proportion of lay representatives too great in comparison with that of the General Medical Council. I think that is a rather thin argument.
I cannot believe that the professional members will feel themselves in danger of being browbeaten or over-weighted because there are five lay representatives instead of four. Then the Minister suggested that Wales should be consoled for lack of protection of her interests in paragraph 2 (2) because she was over-represented as compared with England in paragraph 3. When we look at page 28 of the Bill, and the composition and recruitment of the professional members, Wales is, of course, over-represented as compared with England, but. as we know perfectly well, England always is under-represented because if it were represented according to population the body in question would become intolerably large or the representation of the smaller parts of the United Kingdom would be squeezed to an impractically low limit.
The point is that, in page 28, in the matter of professional members Wales is not over-represented in comparison with Scotland and Northern Ireland, so that the Welsh can get no consolation from the fact that their interests are not protected in paragraph 2 (2) of the Schedule.
What is going to happen if we keep paragraph 2 (2) as it is? There are to be two representatives for England and Wales, and, as the Minister says they may both be English or both Welsh or one representing each country. That means that Wales can only have any chance of getting a representative on the assumption that, of the four lay members, England has only one. That is to say that


Wales can only get a chance if England is to be quite ridiculously under-represented when we consider its population and its position in the United Kingdom.
Another thing will happen. In view of the feeling expressed by my hon. Friend, and which no doubt will be expressed further in Wales, when the question of actually making a choice comes, is not the Government of the day going to say, "Well, we have, after all, to pay attention to opinion in Wales, and on the whole it would be desirable to see that one of these two is a Welshman"? That will work to the disadvantage of England and to the disadvantage of choosing the best men.
There are all these difficulties. The grievance of Wales and the danger of under-representation of England could be overcome by amending the Bill to ensure that Wales, like Scotland and Northern Ireland, has at any rate one representative, but to reserve two for England. To do that would require an Amendment in another place.
Everyone is looking desperately at the moment for another argument to justify the existence of the other place, and this is exactly the kind of thing that it is for—to put things right when we get into procedural difficulties here. The suggestion that such an Amendment would provide for too many lay members on the Council—five instead of four—I do not think carries conviction, even with the Minister. It would be easy for him to get up and say that the Government will look at this matter again, and that an Amendment will be introduced in another place to the equal gratification of England and Wales.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 28, line 5, leave out "five" and insert "seven."—[Mr. Turton.]

5.45 p.m.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I beg to move, in page 29, line 47, at the end to insert:
Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not authorise the making of rules varying the provisions of this Schedule as to the quorum of the Disciplinary Committee.
This Amendment ties up with the Amendment in page 30, line 44, that the quorum for a meeting of the Disciplinary Committee shall be five, of whom at least one shall be an elected dentist.
The present Amendment is designed to prevent the Council, when exercising its general powers to make rules for regulating the proceedings—including quorum—of committee, from varying the provisions of the Schedule fixing the quorum of the Disciplinary Committee. We regard this as a necessary provision because the Disciplinary Committee is so important a body that it should be formally laid down that the necessary quorum must be present and that it should not be within the power of the Committee to alter it.

Mr. Hale: I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. Lady has had the advice of Parliamentary draftsmen on this and that they suggested it. I venture to put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it will make Parliament look ridiculous to put in an Act of Parliament that rules delegated by an Act of Parliament shall not have power to alter the Act. The provision is perfectly clear in the Bill. How can rules to make rules give the power to alter the provisions of the Bill? It seems a regrettable form of Amendment. Every time that, in order to avoid some almost mystical question which may arise in the minds of some doubtful or hesitant legislator, we expressly put something down to prevent it, we are really creating much more the impression that such a thing should be done.

Mr. Torton: I will look at the point which the hon. Gentleman has made. If, on consideration, I find that he is right, I will have the necessary Amendment made in another place. At the moment, I am satisfied that the present Amendment is right.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Hynd: I beg to move, in page 30, line 24, to leave out "five" and to insert "six."
I think it would be for the convenience of the House if we could deal with this Amendment and the subsequent two Amendments in my name, in page 30, line 25, to leave out "one" and to insert "two," and in line 34, to leave out "at least."
The point is a simple one. It is, however, a rather important one which, 1 think, I raised in Committee. The Amendment to leave out "five" and to insert "six" is, of course, dependent on the


second Amendment to leave out "one" and to insert "two." The third Amendment, in page 30, line 34, would be consequent on the other two. The point is that in this part of the Schedule it is provided that there should be two committees for dealing with disciplinary matters. The first is a committee which sifts complaints about dentists and decides which are of sufficient importance to require either a warning to the dentist or the case to be referred to the disciplinary committee which is the final court to judge the cases.
The Schedule provides that in the first committee there shall be only one lay member. In the second committee, the Disciplinary Committee, there shall be at least two. On the General Dental Council there are to be in all four lay members. It seems more practical to have two lay members on each of these committees than have one member on one committee and possibly three on another.
The experience of the General Medical Council, on which there are only three lay members, has been that where there is only one member on either of these two committees—and similar committees operate on the General Medical Council—should a member be ill or otherwise unable to attend there is no real representation on the committee at all. This is most important, because I can assure the House that doctors on the General Medical Council are concerned that lay opinion should be available when the Council is considering disciplinary cases.
I hope that there is no suggestion in the distribution of representation on the two committees proposed in the Bill that the preliminary committee is less important than the final Disciplinary Committee. It might be regarded, on the contrary, that the committee which deals with large numbers of complaints made and decides on their importance or otherwise and establishes a prima facie case for submission to the other committee could be regarded as even more important than the other committee.
I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept the Amendment, which is quite practicable. The Bill provides that there shall be at least two members on the Disciplinary Committee, which means that there can be two or that there may be three, whereas on the first preliminary committee there can be only one. I

apologise to the House for having overlooked a consequential Amendment that should have been made to line 25 which states, even with the Amendment, that
… of whom one shall be a person. …
That is a grammatical or mathematical error which I apologise for having overlooked. In view of what I have said and the complete reasonableness of it, based on the experience of the General Medical Council, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Hastings: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Turton: I understand that the figures in the first Amendment are exactly the same figures as apply in the case of the General Medical Council and that the arrangement has proved satisfactory to the Council. I should have thought that the House would have been wiser to have stuck to the same number of lay members as are on the General Medical Council. If we increased the numbers, professional men might think that they were being overweighted by lay members. I would ask the House not to accept the Amendment for these reasons and because the Schedule providing for this composition has been generally talked over and agreed with the profession. I cannot see why there should be more lay members on a particular committee of the General Dental Council than there are on a similar committee of the General Medical Council. It is a narrow point, but, on balance, I suggest that the hon. Member has not made his case.

Mr. J. Hynd: It seems rather strange that we should say that whatever the experience of the General Medical Council, which is the only body which has experience of this kind of arrangement, and whatever inconvenience that Council has found as a result of such an arrangement, we must not benefit in any circumstance from that experience in setting up this new body.

Mr. Turton: I have not heard any evidence of the General Medical Council experiencing inconvenience with these numbers. That is the point.

Mr. Hynd: As one who has served for five years as a lay member of the General Medical Council, I assure the Minister that that is so. Four lay


members are to be appointed to this new body and their primary function must necessarily be with regard to disciplinary matters, because they cannot give any expert assistance in the matter of teaching or qualifications. Their specific purpose is to assist dentists by giving the public point of view on disciplinary matters. The Bill provides for one member on one committee and at least two on the other, and, therefore, leaves one of the four members not in use at all. I do not see the purpose of his being on the Council. Alternatively, the arrangement allows one to be on one committee and, in order to use the third member, three members are appointed to the other committee. That is quite illogical and makes no provision at all for absence.
If the Minister's point is that dentists do not want watchdogs on the committees that is quite opposite to the feeling of the General Medical Council which welcomes consultation with lay members. If that is the Minister's point, what is he going to think of three members on the Disciplinary Committee? There should be a logical and sensible distribution of these four members, who are appointed to deal specifically with disciplinary matters, as between these two committees. If the Minister asserts that I have not made out a case, I cannot follow him, because he has not made out a case to the contrary.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The next Amendment in page 30, line 25, falls. I thought that the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) said that it was consequential.

Mr. Hynd: On a point of order. What I said was that although the sequence was otherwise, because of the sequence in the Bill, the first Amendment is consequential on the second and the second Amendment can stand without the first being carried. The first only increases the total number of members on the Council, but I could not have avoided putting the first Amendment on the Order Paper after having put the second.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that my mathematics are good enough to follow all that, but I will try.

Mr. Hynd: I beg formally to move, in page 30, line 25, to leave out "one" and to insert "two."

Mr. A. J. Champion: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I beg to move, in line 33, to leave out "three" and to insert "four."
The effect of the Amendment is to increase the minimum number of elected dentists of the Disciplinary Committee from three to four. Representations were made by hon. Members in Committee. The Amendment follows the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Labour and National Service when it was suggested that the number should be increased from three to five. The Minister agreed to look into the matter and the proposal he then made was that at this stage he would move to increase the number to four.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Hale: I have hesitated so often in deference to the experts whom I thought might rise in this debate that frequently I have found that I have hesitated too long, which is not normally the case, but I felt like a Sassenach intruding in a Scottish debate in arriving on the scene at all.
I thank the Minister for this Amendment and for a number of other Amendments by which the difficulties which I promised to look after in this House have been met by the right hon. Gentleman. I have not thought fit to put down Amendments which clearly would have no great support, but I promised to be here throughout the debate to see that these views were put. So I take the opportunity of thanking the Minister for having met at least some of the objections. I am sure that he will undertake to keep under constant review and to explore every avenue and to leave no stone unturned to see that there is no sense of disquiet left in the profession.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Hynd: I beg to move, in page 30, line 44, after "present" to insert "and voting."
This Amendment deals with a simple point referred to in Committee. The Schedule reads:
All acts of the Disciplinary Committee shall be decided by a majority of the members present at any meeting.


The point was raised as to whether this should not be "present and voting" at any meeting. On that occasion the Minister gave a clear undertaking that he realised it was a valid point and took it to mean present and voting, although the Bill does not say so. He said it was a new point and suggested that an Amendment put down in Committee should be withdrawn on the understanding that he would look into it.
The simple point is that if there were eight members present at the meeting and four voted in favour of a proposition, two voted against it and one or two abstained, it would not be carried. Yet the Bill reads as if, when a majority of those voting at a meeting are in favour of a proposition, it should be carried. I have put down this Amendment so that the Minister can implement what he said he understood was the meaning of the Bill as it stood.

Mr. Champion: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Turton: I have looked at this matter and I would not recommend the House to accept this Amendment. As the Bill stands a decision must be made by a majority of the members present. The effect of this Amendment would be that a decision might be taken by a very small number of members. In the extreme case a single member could vote away another person's livelihood, with all the rest abstaining. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) would not wish that to happen. It is vital that in matters of such great importance, involving a professional livelihood, the person involved should feel that the decision would be reached by a majority of those present.
For those reasons, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment. It would be a mistake for the House to accept it, although I am glad that the point has been raised.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 30, line 44, at end insert:
(5) The quorum for a meeting of the Disciplinary Committee shall be five of whom at least one shall be an elected member of the Council.—[Miss Hornsby-Smith.]
Bill read the Third time and passed.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(PROVISION FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH.)

6.5 p.m.

The Chairman: The three Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) are out of order, because they go beyond the scope of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I cannot speak to the Amendments which you, Sir Charles, have decided not to call, for the obvious reason that I should be out of order, but I have one or two observations to make on the Clause as a whole.
On Second Reading, I called attention to the fact that there is a substantial body of veterinarians strongly of the opinion that there should be a separate medical council dealing with veterinary research, whose job would be that of fostering and co-ordinating all aspects of veterinary science. The answer I received from the Parliamentary Secretary did not wholly convince me that there ought not to be such a medical council.
As you have indicated, Sir Charles, I sought to find Amendments within the Title of the Bill which would enable me to express that point of view at this stage, but it was difficult, and you have decided not to call them. Despite the fact that I cannot discuss that aspect of the matter, there are some aspects of the problem of veterinary research which can be discussed now. For example, there is this sentence in Clause 1:
… the Agricultural Research Council shall be charged … with the organisation and development of agricultural research, and may in particular establish or develop institutions or departments of institutions, and make grants, for investigation and research relating to the advancement of agriculture.
In view of my interest in this matter, a strong representation has been made to me in the following notes which were given to me in this connection:
While substantial provision has been made for veterinary research, it has remained insufficiently co-ordinated and for this reason


certain fields have been neglected. For instance, research into problems affecting the poultry and pig industries has not received the attention deserved. In addition, many branches have been largely overlooked, e.g. clinical studies, including surgical research. Investigations of this type are mainly related to diseases of individual animals; but the over-all losses therefrom represent a serious factor in the economy of agriculture and the welfare of the animal population. Such advances as have been made in the fields of animal research during recent years have been through the unaided efforts of workers in veterinary schools, and of practitioners. There has been little attempt to co-ordinate studies relating to the diseases transmissible from animals to man, and insufficient stimulus has been given to the study of basic research into factors influencing the epidemiology of disease.
That, coming from someone who knows what he is talking about in this connection, constitutes a serious indictment of the present position in relation to veterinary research. Even if there is an element of exaggeration about what I have just read out——

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin-Morris): Order, order. I do not want to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman seems to me now to be dealing with issues raised by his Amendments, which are beyond the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Champion: I am coming to the point, Sir Rhys, that certain aspects under the existing situation are not being dealt with properly. I shall suggest to the Government that they shall call the attention of the Council, as they are permitted to do under Clause 1, to the need to take into consideration the factors which I am mentioning. I was trying hard not to mention things which I felt I ought not to mention having regard to the fact that the Chair decided not to call my Amendments. I will try again and hope for the best.
In connection with the paragraph which I have read, I was particularly struck by the point made about the comparative neglect of research into poultry problems. This is a matter about which I am sure the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows something. It must be remembered that this is a very important aspect of the science, and the poultry industry is a very important one in relation to agriculture as a whole. I have no very recent figures. but as a branch of agriculture it stood third in importance in 1938, and I imagine that it has not changed very much in the

intervening years. Therefore, it is extremely important.
The veterinary problem is a matter of considerable importance within our economy and to the industry as a whole. The Government have shown that they are not prepared to set up a separate research council for veterinary surgeons, but I think that certain Amendments might be made to the set-up of the Agricultural Research Council to enable a greater amount of weight to be placed upon the work of that side of agricultural research.
I urge the Minister that under Clause 1 he should suggest—I do not even go as far as saying that he should give a directive—to the Agricultural Research Council that a committee might be specially constituted charged with the tasks of, first, intensifying and further developing veterinary research; secondly, generally within the Council dealing with the disease problem and the scientific aspects of livestock development affecting animal health; and, thirdly, making representations as to the amount of funds necessary for those purposes to the Council.
These matters appear to me to deserve consideration by the Minister. I hope he will consider them when he has obtained his Measure and will make suggestions along those lines to the Agricultural Research Council, for I believe this would assist the industry generally and the profession as a whole.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Lest there should be any misunderstanding about what I said on Second Reading, I should like to support the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) in his general approach today.
The Bill deals with agriculture, but agriculture is in two parts. There is crop husbandry and livestock husbandry. The Government's attitude towards this matter until now has been that, as the animals eat the crops, whether of grass or something else, there should be integration of the two forms in the interests of both. Personally, I do not disagree with that idea.
On the more technical details of the study of livestock and livestock diseases and the importance placed on veterinary research, I agree with the hon. Gentleman


that until a very few years ago this was very largely neglected by the Governments of the day. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree that since 1948, when the Veterinary Surgeons Act was passed, a great deal of research has been done——

The Deputy-Chairman: This is a machinery Bill providing for the setting up of a Council. Details about veterinary research do not come within the scope of the Bill.

6.15 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I would point out, Sir Rhys, that there are veterinary surgeons on the Council, part of the duty of the Council is veterinary research, and the object of the Council is to integrate and co-ordinate veterinary and agricultural research. With all due humility, I submit that I am in order in talking about the veterinary side and asking, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East did, that there should be greater emphasis in future in the administration of the Council on the veterinary side, particularly in regard to pigs and poultry, and that greater sums of money should be spent by the Council upon that side instead of concentrating, as it has done so far, on crops and the other side——

The Deputy-Chairman: That is clearly outside the scope of the Clause. The Clause is purely a machinery one setting up a Council and providing it with funds.

Captain Duncan: With all due respect, Sir Rhys, having been set up, the Council has to do something.

The Deputy-Chairman: It may be perfectly true that it has to do something, but that does not come within the Clause. What the Council does is not covered by the Clause at all.

Mr. Leslie Hale: With very great respect, Sir Rhys, but entirely without humility, I would point out that the Bill authorises money to be spent by Parliament upon agricultural research. If we are authorising unlimited sums to be issued from the Treasury at the request of the Minister, subject to a later Parliamentary sanction, for agricultural research, and if we know, having been informed, that animal physiology is one of the objects of research, and also stock rearing, and so on, surely we are fully entitled to discuss the matter. I do not

know precisely what "veterinary" means, and I do not know whether anyone else does, but if we are discussing the provision of money for raising poultry and increasing egg laying, surely we are entitled to discuss poultry diseases and their cure.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is precisely what the Committee cannot discuss under the Bill. Hon. Members are entitled to discuss the setting up of machinery and the provision of funds for it. This is purely a machinery provision. Hon. Members cannot discuss what the Council is going to do.

Mr. Hale: With respect, Sir Rhys, the Clause is the whole of the Bill except for the Title, and it says:
There shall be established an Agricultural Research Fund into which shall be paid … such moneys as may from time to time be provided by Parliament for the purposes of this Act ….
Surely we are entitled now to discuss the branches of agriculture which we consider to be fit subjects for agricultural research.

The Deputy-Chairman: It will be in order to discuss that when the funds are provided, but they are not provided here.

Captain Duncan: With all due respect, Sir Rhys, the Clause says that the Council is to be set up:
… and may … establish or develop institutions, or departments of institutions, and make grants, for investigation and research relating to the advancement of agriculture.
Agriculture is divided into two parts, crop husbandry and livestock farming, and my contention is that the Council in its work in the future should put greater emphasis on the livestock side of agriculture in comparison with the crop husbandry side than has been done in the past. I may be getting near the line again, Sir Rhys, but I have made my point.
I hope that in its future administration the Council will pay greater attention to this problem, because the losses in livestock are an unnecessary waste of effort, money and productive efficiency, a very large amount of which could be eliminated by further scientific research by the veterinary profession and by the use by farmers of the results of that research. It is that job which the Agricultural Research Council can so well do.

Mr. Hale: I entirely agree with the last two speeches and I do not propose to add anything to them, because hon. Members on each side have said all that needs to be said; but I should have thought that the Virus Research Council, at Cambridge, had a good deal to do with this matter. The Bill authorises directions to be given by the Lord President of the Council to the Agricultural Research Council which can use the services of the Virus Research Council. My only short point is that we had a Select Committee on delegated legislation which unanimously said that delegated legislation was singularly undesirable, but that it was unfortunately necessary that we had to use it.
It is true that this is a Bill which simply refers to existing organisations and enlarges powers, and so on, but the form of drafting is such that, had it initiated the Agricultural Research Council, it would have been a classic example of Parliament completely abrogating its functions. Both sides of the Committee are convinced that it is a useful and proper Measure, but it provides no measure of Parliamentary control. It provides no limit on the amount of funds that can be granted. Decision as to directions can be given by the Lord President of the Council alone and by anybody else whom he cares to add to the Committee. Decision as to the funds can be made by the Minister alone, subject to the agreement of the Treasury, and there is no control of any kind, sort or description.
I suggest that in the interests of the dignity of the Committee it is as well that these measures should provide a little more for Parliamentary control. I suggest that the Minister should have in mind the fact—although I admit that there is a case for this and that it amends Acts which have already provided some measure of control—that the drafting is very wide and does tend to abrogate the power of Parliamentary control.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): May I, first, deal with the constitutional point raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), and assure him that the position is not as bad as he has seen it? In fact, the Lord President's committee will consist of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Food and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Vote will be that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, so that Parliament must approve the money, although once approved the money will be under the control of those three Ministers in its spending, with the normal safeguards of the Treasury. Parliament does control the purse strings and it is right, Parliament having determined how much money is to be made available, that in activities of this kind the greatest possible freedom in the actual spending of the money should be given.

Mr. Hale: The Parliamentary Secretary should bear in mind the very important factor that Ministers always start with good intentions and nearly always finish up as viscounts. It is not always possible to carry out what is intended. The Bill gives the Lord President of the Council power to do what he likes about directions and forming the committee. We accept the assurance that he would carry on in much the same way, subject to the Amendments. We attach importance to the assurances of the Minister, but they are still only verbal assurances.

Mr. Nugent: Parliament is an effective watchdog and so long as Members like the hon. Member for Oldham, West are here, we need not fear that this will be an ineffective constitutional device. On the other side, I assure the hon. Member—and I am sure the Committee accepts it—that it is most desirable in these matters of research to give the maximum freedom in the activities of the body and thereby get the best results.
I want, briefly, to reply to other points without going out of order. I think that I said on Second Reading that the balance of advantage is in keeping the combination of the veterinary scientists with the general agricultural scientists under the aegis of the Agricultural Research Council. The work of agriculture and the whole of livestock husbandry is so intimately bound up with the work of veterinary surgeons that there is every advantage in keeping the two together. I will certainly acknowledge that there is scope for more work on livestock husbandry and perhaps particularly on poultry husbandry. I think that the A.R.C. recognises that and at the present time it is in process of taking over the


very admirable pioneer work started by the Animal Health Trust in that line.
However, the soundness of my argument is still there. It is that the work of the veterinary expert with the agriculturalist is part of a whole problem, and we want to keep them working together. The A.R.C. is the right body to see that development proceeds in a co-ordinated fashion. I take note of the comments of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) on this and, indeed, those of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan), and I do not doubt that the Agricultural Research Council will also have taken note of them. I do not think that anyone would disagree with the importance of developing veterinary work in agriculture today, not so much the curative as the preventive work.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is pursuing this too far.

Mr. Nugent: I shall conclude my remarks, Sir Rhys. If my interest in the subject has led me astray, I hope that I shall be forgiven. We have taken note of the remarks of the two hon. Members and I do not doubt that we shall do our best to cater for them. I have given as substantial an answer as I can and I hope that the Committee will now be ready to agree to the Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

6.28 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am afraid that if I go into the details of the Bill I shall go too far.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give just a summary of the Bill. Perhaps he will go a little further.

The Solicitor-General: I fear that I shall go too far if I go into the case for the Bill, which is pure consolidation. For her delight, I tell the right hon. Lady that it consolidates four Measures and makes them easier to read than they would otherwise be. It deals with antibiotics, penicillin and like matters which are well known to the right hon. Lady.

Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me why he is dealing with the Bill.

The Solicitor-General: I believe that it is the practice for a Law Officer to invite the House to approve consolidation Bills. They emerge from machinery of legislation under the control of the Lord Chancellor and for which we in this House are answerable.

Dr. Summerskill: Is it the practice for a Law Officer to deal with a Bill without a representative of the Ministry concerned being present? I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health has now entered the Chamber.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

Committee upon Monday next.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. J. Enoch Powell discharged from the Select Committee; Mr. Robert Jenkins added.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS)

Miss Pitt discharged from the Seleot Committee; Mr. Partridge added.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

MATERNITY FACILITIES, REDDITCH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

6.30 p.m.

Mr. James Dance: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to put forward some of the views of Redditch on the very important matters of providing maternity facilities, and I am also grateful to the Minister for the consideration which she has already given to this matter.
Redditch is a rapidly growing town. Its pre-war population was about 22,000, whereas last year the figure was about 31,000. That rapid increase in population is likely to continue at a more accelerated pace due to the fact that Redditch has agreed to assist Birmingham in its overspill problem. At present, there exists a feeling of frustration among Redditch people that they are being prevented from developing along progressive lines. We are here dealing with a community which is not prepared just to sit down and expect someone else to do everything for it. It is prepared to act, and has acted, on its own initiative.
After the war, private enterprise and private money set up a maternity home known as "The Gables" which was run for years successfully except, unfortunately, from the financial point of view, as there was no Government assistance. Recently, this progressive council acquired a hostel from the Ministry of Labour known as the Abbey Hostel. We are not, therefore, dealing with a council which is not prepared to endeavour to help itself.
Owing to the lack of these maternity facilities, there is a great deal of inconvenience in the town. First, there is the question of husbands visiting their wives and children. In a large number of cases they have to go many miles. The nearest accommodation at present is at Bromsgrove, which is about 6½ to 10 miles from parts of the Redditch urban district. Bromsgrove itself cannot deal with the whole problem so that many of these mothers are sent about 15 miles to Evesham, and there is an extremely bad bus service. I am informed that there are certain occasions when fathers have made

this journey and found that they had only a few minutes to spend with their wives before they must return home. There is another question—that of the ambulance service. Sending these mothers to the surrounding towns at 2s. a mile amounts to quite a considerable sum at the end of the year.
I wish to discuss for a moment the trade and industry of this progressive town. Because a diversity of goods are manufactured there, Redditch has the extraordinary record of exporting something like 80 per cent. of its products, which must be among the highest figures in the land. Another factor which should be considered is that, because of the actual articles they make, such as hypodermic needles, springs and the like, the amount of valuable steel which in many cases has to be imported into this country does, in effect, earn a large number of dollars and foreign currency, a great deal more than the heavier industries whose consumption of steel is far greater compared with the output.
The work done in Redditch is in many ways complicated and requires great skill. For years we have been told that to get on well in the Redditch industry one needs "Redditch fingers." I wish to see those "Redditch fingers" employed in making these goods for export, and not idle. I understand that it is the policy of the Government, and also the recommendation of doctors throughout the country, that as many mothers as possible should have their babies at home, and we would all agree with that. But I think that it has been proved that in Redditch there exists a problem by the mere fact that the council found it necessary to buy the hostel.
There are many people in transit who have no homes of their own and people who live in lodgings. While I agree that most of the people who live in hostels are single, there are very many married families who live in lodgings, so that it would be impossible for those mothers to have their babies at home, because they have no home of their own. The Redditch Council recently offered a sick bay in the Abbey Hostel to be used as a maternity ward. I have received local medical advice about the suitability of using this ward. I am told that with virtually no expense we could produce there one labour ward, one isolation ward


and at least nine beds which would be quite adequate to meet the present needs of Redditch. Like an expanding bookcase, this hostel, being fairly large, would allow the maternity hospital to be always complete but never finished—it could expand and go on expanding. I am also informed that it may be possible for this maternity home, if we secure it, to be run in conjunction with the general hospital known as "Smallwood," which is 500 yards away from the proposed new home. It may easily be that that idea would work very well and, in some cases, might avoid the duplication of nursing staff.
I believe that the psychological effect on this town and the feeling of frustration is very marked. Were the people given some encouragement, which I sincerely hope the Minister will be able to offer, it would have a profound effect on them. It is a hard-working community, earning valuable foreign currency. I consider that here the people of Redditch are asking only for reasonable facilities in requesting this maternity accommodation. I can assure the House that if this request is granted, the Redditch community will play its part in good faith. It will not let the Minister down if this assistance is granted.

6.38 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the manner in which he has raised this question. It is a matter which is common to many communities; they all wish to have their own small local maternity unit.
It is true that in August, 1954,"The Gables," a privately run maternity hospital, was closed because of financial difficulties. It is a measure of the sympathy displayed by my right hon. Friend the former Minister regarding this problem that he met a deputation and referred the matter to the regional board. It was found quite impossible to take over this very small unit of ten beds. It would have required considerable adaptation to bring it up to the standard required for a maternity unit under the Health Service and it would have been very uneconomic to run.
There are many questions which every regional hospital board has to consider in relation to these small maternity units.
We all appreciate the desire of every community to have one on the doorstep, but it is not a practical proposition in the overall programme of regional hospital boards, provided that they are able to offer available beds to meet the demand in reasonably near units. The board has looked most carefully into this question and has also considered, at our request, the suggestion which my hon. Friend made in regard to the Abbey Hostel. When any unit of this kind—and"The Gables" was such a unit—is closed, the board has to ask itself whether there are alternative beds. In this case there are, and they are linked with general hospitals, where greater and wider facilities are available.
It is true that some of those beds are at Evesham, which is about 16 miles away, and the others at Bromsgrove. I understand that some mothers from Redditch have had to go to Evesham. I should like to make it quite clear that of those mothers who, in the first half of last year, had to be confined at either Redditch or Evesham, more than half were confined at Bromsgrove, which is nearer. Thirty-five were confined at Evesham, and 20 at six other hospitals within the area. I want to make it plain to my hon. Friend that the Government appreciate the disadvantage of Redditch mothers having to travel so far as Evesham. It is the board's ultimate intention to increase the maternity accommodation at Bromsgrove Hospital in order that Redditch mothers can go there rather than to Evesham. Seven additional beds were made available in Bromsgrove last year, and the additional award of 17 beds should be completed by the end of this month.
The main trouble, which applies not only to general hospitals but to any new unit such as that suggested by my hon. Friend, is the great difficulty of staffing. We cannot open these 17 beds at Bromsgrove Hospital until we are able to obtain additional staff, and it would make things even more difficult if the board set about opening a new unit of 10 or 12 beds within the locality, because that would make an even greater demand upon the available maternity ward staff.
I can assure the hon. Member that the board is advertising; it is also endeavouring to see whether it is possible to transfer any staff from other centres within the


region, in a very real effort to get the 17 beds at Bromsgrove opened as soon as possible. As soon as they are opened mothers will no longer have to go to Evesham from Redditch; except for the odd exceptional case they will automatically go to Bromsgrove Hospital, which is about six miles from Redditch. That is not an undue distance when one considers the many calls upon the regional hospital board, and its duty, if it has available beds, to see that those beds in general hospitals, which have far greater facilities than the 10 or 12 bed unit, are properly used in the interests of the efficient running of the service.
I understand that the local authority has put forward a suggestion in relation to the taking over and use of Abbey Hostel. Our report is not as favourable as that of my hon. Friend. First, it is a prefabricated building. Secondly, its layout is not suitable for a maternity unit; the interior would have to be completely demolished and rebuilt and the layout re-designed in order to conform to the standards upon which the service now insists in regard to maternity units. To adapt a unit of this very small size—at present it would take only 10 or 12 beds—would cost many thousands of pounds. There is no provision for anything that could be turned into a labour ward, and one would have to be built. This would probably take up the space of two of those 12 beds. It is true that there are some sterilising facilities there, but it is not suitable for a maternity unit.
The capital expenditure on this unit would be very high, and, even if we could get over the staffing problem—which I very much doubt, in the light of our difficulty in finding staff for 17 beds at Bromsgrove—it would be a unit of only about 10 beds, which we have found from experience to be an extraordinarily costly unit to run, and one which carries costs in staffing and equipment far and away above those of a general hospital or, in many cases, even a teaching hospital. It would be a small unit, isolated from the general hospital services which, as I have said, can provide overall a better and wider service for mothers than can such a very small unit.
Taking the region as a whole, the board is very satisfied that Worcester is well provided with maternity beds. The

problem is not that a mother cannot get hospital attention; there has been no question of mothers in Redditch not being able to get hospital accommodation when it is required—and I know my hon. Friend did not raise the point. In fact, accommodation can be so provided, and it is our hope and intention, as soon as staff are available, that the 17 additional beds at Bromsgrove will be put at the disposal of those mothers.
With that assurance I think my hon. Friend can fairly say to the mothers of Bromsgrove that adequate accommodation is being provided for confinement in hospital, and is being provided in a general hospital with all the facilities and equipment that we require under the Health Service. While it does entail a journey of about six miles, it provides a more efficient service and it is a practical and efficient solution to the problem.
I do not believe that the unit which it has been suggested should be turned into a maternity hospital would be as satisfactory. Further, it would not be fair to ask the board—when it has available beds which are within a reasonable distance and are attached to a general hospital—to expend considerable capital moneys, which are needed for other priorities within the region, to turn an old, prefabricated building into what, at most, would be a second-best maternity unit.
I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that this matter has been given very deep consideration. We considered the question of the closing of the former unit with great sympathy. We have gone into this matter in great detail, and I believe that when we are able to get the staff—and the board is seriously endeavouring to get that staff, by advertising—the 17 beds at Bromsgrove will be made available, thereby cutting down the journey for those who previously had to go to Evesham, and providing an efficient and sound service for the mothers of Redditch who are housed in Bromsgrove Hospital.

6.50 p.m.

Sir Frederick Messer: The House should be indebted to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) for raising this question. While it is true that it has local interest, the whole problem is one of national importance.
When the National Health Service came in, one of the chief functions of the regional boards was to plan the service,


allocate money and deal with specialist services, etc. When the boards started on this job it was evident that they would have to take cognisance of the work that was being done by hospitals and similar institutions which were outside the service. In the main, the standards of the service improved as the result of planning, but not necessarily so with the standards of hopsitals that were outside.
There were many reasons for that. In the case which has been cited of a hospital which is no longer continuing because it was unable to provide the necessary finance, during the period towards the end of the time the standards of service must have got lower and lower because of the limited means at its disposal for maintaining the hospital and keeping the doors open, but the hon. Gentleman need not be alarmed at the prospect of maternity cases going six miles away. It is usually in rural areas that that applies. There are many cases where a mother has had to go six miles.
One important factor, as those who have read the Reports of the Central Health Service Council will know, and who pay attention to the proper use of beds, is that the normal place for a confinement is at home. Confinement is not a pathological condition but a normal condition. Admission to a maternity hospital is mainly decided according to surgical necessity. If the case needs Caesarean section or an operation, or calls for the attention of a surgeon, it must have first priority. The next priority is for a first child or bad social conditions. Far too many homes are congested and it would be strictly against the interests of the mother and child, and of the health of the rest of the family, for the confinement to take place there. Cases that are not likely to be difficult cases are admitted if there is a vacant bed, because that is an advantage to the mother.
We have to regard maternity in the light of a normal case. In the case we have been discussing there is a prefabricated, hospital. I do not know its conditions or whether there is a nursery. Up-to-date opinion is that the child should be in a cot in the same ward as the mother, but that must be related to the type of ward. I do not know what conditions are in a ten-bed hospital and whether it has a milk kitchen. One child may go down with gastro-enteritis and then we

have to shut the hospital because that is an infection that is easily caught. It would be wrong to consider convenience as against health. I know that small maternity units are run privately where we get none of these dramatic happenings. but it is the risk which is important.
I shall not argue the case about hospitals which are a long way from the patient. That cannot be avoided. In some parts of the country, even under National Health Service planning, the position is serious, and not only in relation to maternity. In East Anglia, for example, Cambridge may be 50 miles in one direction from a patient and Norwich 50 miles in another direction and between those places there may be no hospital of any sort. For a patient to have to travel six miles for a confinement cannot be regarded as real hardship compared with what may happen to other types of patient. Every regional board has its planning committee, which is not a body which sits, plans and goes away, leaving the plan to be carried out. It is continually in session because of the need for constant change. The regional board has to take cognisance of the pressure on ordinary days.
We wonder whether the best use for a place like this hospital is maternity. Could it not be better used for a different type of patient? Already, in almost every region, pressure is being applied for the accommodation of old people. The suggestion is that the chronic case ought not to be in the high-standard hospital where it probably costs £15 or £20 per week to keep a patient. Old people ought to be in an annex to a district hospital. That would be a better use for the type of hospital about which we have been hearing.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove ought to press for ease of transport. I have in mind one hospital in North London. Delivery of the child takes place in the hospital, and the mother is afterwards taken a few miles away TO what, in effect, is a maternity nursing home. That system has operated quite well. At Isleworth, in West Middlesex, mothers are delivered of their children, and then taken 15 miles away. As the result of that turnover in the hospital, the mothers no longer needed that proportion of the labour ward, of the milk kitchen or of the nursery, so many more


patients can be accommodated. For those reasons we ought to aim at a plan for adequate maternity accommodation in a district hospital for the catchment area in which that hospital happens to be.
While I praise the hon. Member for raising this subject—I think he has done the right thing—what is wanted is fresh planning, so that when we can get the capital we can adjust our existing accommodation——

It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No.7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

BLYTH GENERATING STATION (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

As amended, considered.

New Clause.—(RESTRICTION ON EMPLOYMENT.)

The Authority in constructing the works authorised by this Act shall not employ or cause to be employed any person who is paid, either directly or indirectly, by way of salary, contribution to superannuation fund or otherwise, any additional sum of money on condition that he does not join or maintain his membership of any trade union.—[Mr. Mikardo.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I should first like to apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) for having unwittingly and unwillingly been the cause of curtailing his speech on a subject on which, we all know, he is a great authority. Whilst I am in an apologising mood, I should like to apologise on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself for any inconvenience which our action in tabling this new Clause may have caused the sponsors of the Bill. The Bill has been brought forward by an important, most progressive and effective national authority for purposes which it doubtless considers important, and it is not with any desire to interfere with the purposes of the Central Electricity Authority that we have taken this action

I should also like to express regret for any inconvenience which we may have caused the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, whose kindness and helpfulness to all of us have earned our gratitude and respect. It is only because we think that an important point of principle is involved, and because we think that this Bill provides a proper vehicle for bringing out that point of principle that we have sought to delay the Bill's progress in order to obtain consideration of this new Clause.
The purpose of the Clause will be clear to hon. Members. It is to ensure that in carrying out any of the works which the Bill authorises there shall not be employed any persons whose remuneration is partly made up by sums the payment of which is conditional upon such persons not being members of a trade union.
It may be a source of surprise to hon. Members in all parts of the House that in this day and age there should still remain such practices in our country. There is, for example, an organisation, quite common in certain parts of the engineering industry, which is known as the Foremen and Staffs Mutual Benefit Society. Its membership is open to all foremen and people of similar or higher industrial grades in federated engineering establishments, provided that they fulfil two conditions. The first is that they must be nominated for membership, not by another member but by their employer—in itself a rather strange procedure. The second condition is that they are not members, and do not become members, of a trade union.
As its name implies, this organisation is a benefit society. It obtains its funds partly from subscriptions from its membership and partly from payments by employers, and distributes those funds in the form of benefits of one kind and another. Those benefits are doubtless valuable, the society is undoubtedly serving a useful and commendable role, and no one would have anything to say against it if there were not this rather shameful restrictive condition of membership.
Clause 7 of the Society's constitution reads:
Members of a trade union either registered or unregistered shall not be proposed as ordinary members of the society, and if any ordinary member becomes a member of a trade


union either registered or unregistered, he shall thereupon cease to be a member of this society.
The effect of that can be seen at once. A man who has been a member for some time may well have accumulated benefits of quite considerable value. If at any time he thinks of joining a trade union he has to weigh the desirability of doing that against the benefits which he will lose by being automatically excluded from membership.
This is a sort of closed shop in reverse—not an organisation confined to trade unionists but one limited to non-trade unionists. I think that all hon. Members will agree that such an arrangement does not accord with the present climate of British industry. Over and over again, members of Governments, irrespective of party, have paid well-deserved tribute to our trade union movement for the important, constructive and moderate part which it plays in the work and counsels of the nation. It is inconsistent with that atmosphere that there should exist and be supported by employers' organisations a form of society which seeks to make the trade unionist a second-class citizen.
In recent times particularly there has been a great deal of public interest in, and public talk about, what are sometimes rather loosely called restrictive practices. This is a restrictive practice of a particularly pernicious nature, and something about which we ought to be concerned. For many years the Trades Union Congress has been concerned about it. As long ago as 1923, at the annual Trades Union Congress, a motion was moved by the Amalgamated Engineering Union and seconded by the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, condemning the restrictive clause in this society's constitution. That motion was supported by other unions—the draughts-men, the distributive workers, the rail-waymen, the marine workers—and carried by an overwhelming majority.
To go over all the intermediate history would take too long but the T.U.C. consistently took the same attitude. A similar resolution was carried unanimously at the 1942 Congress, and the matter was subsequently reported on by the General Council in 1943, 1944, 1946 and 1947. In addition the Non-Manual Workers' Advisory Council of the T.U.C. passed a similar resolution, and so did 53 trades

councils all over the country in a later year.
Notwithstanding the widespread concern expressed by the trade union movement, the General Council, which has considered this problem very carefully, has never found it easy to deal with it by general legislation. The drafting of general legislation to cover all our many and varied industries, some publicly and some privately owned, presents very considerable technical problems. It was therefore thought that perhaps the best way to deal with this matter was for some sectors of industry to take the lead and show an example by saying that they would have nothing to do with an organisation which discriminated in this way against trade unions.
I am bound to say that the discrimination is sometimes quite severe. I have personal knowledge of cases of firms in which promotion is barred to people unless they are members of this society—and that means that promotion is barred to people if they are trade unionists. That is something which in the industrial climate of these times we ought not to tolerate.
Because of the difficulty of general legislation, perhaps the best way to deal with the matter is to seek one or two sectors of industry which might set the example by routing out this discrimination from their midst. Because of that, some hon. Members will recall that in 1952 I ventured to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule barring these practices from the nationalised industries. I am happy to say that the House did not find that a controversial Measure.
Amongst the sponsors of the Bill were hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Willes-den. West (Mr. Viant) and Mr. Harry Wallace, then a Member of the House, two men who have given many years of distinguished service to the trade union movement, were amongst its sponsors; and so, from the other side of the House, were the hon. Members for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) and for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), for whose support on that occasion I was very grateful.
Moreover, the House gave leave to introduce the Bill without a Division, and although I am aware that that does not necessarily imply support for the Bill on


its merits, I think that this mixed sponsorship and the reaction of the House on that occasion shows that it was a non-controversial view of the House, certainly not a view controversial between the parties, that these practices were not desirable in British industry.
Where are we to look for some sector or sectors of British industry in which a lead might be given in this matter? It seems to me that industrial organisations, whether they be publicly owned or privately owned, which come to the House and seek the service of the House for the passage of legislation for their benefit, could be said to have a special obligation to see that their labour-relations practices are above suspicion. It seems to me, therefore, that there must be many cases of sponsors of Private Bills who might not unreasonably be asked to show a lead in this matter. That is why my hon. Friends and I took the opportunity of putting down the Clause. I am not sure whether we followed the best procedure and put it down at the best stage; and if we did not, then I am sorry that we did not, and we must take care not to repeat the same mistake on another occasion.

Mr. Speaker: I realise the reason for what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I have been waiting to hear something about Blyth and its generating station, with which the Bill deals. It is true that matters of principle may arise on a Private Bill, but it is generally when some provision in the Bill is thought to be obnoxious from the point of view of principle and it is sought to exclude it. The hon. Member is trying to introduce a new Clause. I was waiting to hear whether it had any relevance to the Blyth Generating Station.

Mr. Mikardo: As I understand it, the Bill authorises the Central Electricity Authority to carry out considerable works in connection with the Blyth Generating Station. In the course of those works a great many people will be employed. The question of the labour relations under which those people are employed is a matter which must concern the House. It must concern the House, equally, whether they are employed on the Blyth Generating Station or on other works carried out by the same or other parties.
What I am seeking to argue is that if one can get employers of labour and users of contractors who employ labour to accept this principle, then one will have made a beginning in getting a section of industry in this country which is free from this objectionable practice.
I may be asked, "Why just this Bill?" I would make this answer: this Bill is sponsored by a great public institution, and the public corporations, under the legislation under which they were set up by the House, have very special responsibilities in the field of labour relations. The Electricity Act, under which the Central Electricity Authority was set up, makes the most specific provisions, about labour relations in the industry and the responsibility of the Authority with respect to labour relations.
It seems to me that an organisation of that sort, and especially one, if I may add this in parenthesis, which is headed by a man who in his day was one of the great figures of the trade union movement, might well be disposed to show an example in this matter to other employers in this country.
It is on those grounds that I introduce the new Clause.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to second the Motion.
In view of the advice which you have tendered to the House, Mr. Speaker, I will say a word, first of all, about the Blyth generating station. This is a matter which has affected my constituency. We have shown a very lively interest in the project and I should like to say at once that we are of the opinion that the Bill has been considerably improved in the course of its passage through the House and its consideration in Committee.
If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) has said, we have caused some inconvenience in raising the matter at this stage, I will atone in some measure by being brief. My hon. Friend has put the case admirably. It is a case which has been broadly accepted by the House. It is not a partisan matter in the sense of divisions between political parties. I hope we can say today that we accept trade unionism; and if we accept it we must surely agree that it would be wrong to recognise anybody who excludes trade unionism.
We feel that this is particularly irrelevant on this occasion because here we have a public authority, created by the House and responsible to the House, which is about to carry out its work, and we feel that it would be a reflection upon the House itself if, in the course of the construction of this generating station and the expenditure of public money, foremen and others engaged upon these works should be subject to this invidious distinction and should be debarred from being members of a trade union.
Surely the time has come when we must be sincere in our respect to trade unionism and must say that everyone is entitled to be a member of a trade union, whatever his job. The eligibility for trade unionism should be as broad as it possibly can be. The determination of who is appropriate enough for the particular trade union should rest with that trade union. We think that it is offensive that any limitation should be put upon anyone barring him from associating himself with a trade union and the trade union movement.
This is a substantial point; it is not an arid, academic point. My hon. Friend has said that the Foremen and Staffs Mutual Benefit Society is, in effect, substantially subsidised by the employers. In those circumstances, it is particularly offensive, if we have a body which is very largely supported by the employers, that it should be able to impose upon people occupying a critical position in the works a condition debarring them from being members of a trade union.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is a very effective ban upon anyone who happens to have been a member of this society for any length of time. Should he think it a right and proper thing to become a member of a trade union, he has to suffer the penalty of forfeiting all the benefits towards which he has contributed. He would also debar himself from promotion. We think it absolutely wrong that promotion should be as it were in a closed shop, confined to people who are not members of trade unions.
As my hon. Friend said, this is a matter which repeatedly and constantly has had the attention of the Trades Union Congress. I should have thought, therefore, that it was our duty on every occasion on which this problem arose to take any opportunity open to us to express out

disapproval and condemnation of this practice. We might not have done so very conveniently on this occasion, but this is one occasion on which we can see that the House expresses its view. This is an occasion in which works involve expenditure of public money or are undertaken by a public authority responsible to this House.
This is a matter on which, so far as we know, the House is not divided. Personally, I am not aware of anyone willing to take the view that it is right and proper to debar people from being members of a voluntary organisation or trade union. I hope that as the occasion arises the House will not equivocate, but will clearly express its point of view and say that if there is any element of public expenditure it is a matter in which we are properly interested and shall not allow anyone engaged on the works—in whatever capacity—to be debarred from his proper right of being a member of a trade union.

7.23 p.m.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): First, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) for the kind references he has made to myself. I wish to intervene in this debate to make a few observations on the new Clause moved by the hon. Member for Reading, not on its merits which are no concern of mine, but on a matter of procedure to which the debate gives rise.
Hon. Members will be aware that as Chairman of Ways and Means I am made responsible by the House for supervising the passage of Private Bills through this House. The reason for that is that Private Bills, unlike Public Bills, are not promoted by Members of this House, but are introduced on the petition of outside persons or bodies. My duty, therefore is, in the words of one of my predecessors, to ensure that these persons or bodies
get their case fairly put before Parliament and that the machinery of the House of Commons is properly used to deal with their case.
It is from that point of view and that point of view only that I am intervening in this debate because I think that this procedure is being endangered. It is not with the merits of the hon. Members Clause that I am concerned, but at the late stage the hon. Member has thought fit to bring it forward.
As the House is aware, the effective control on the details of a Private Bill is exercised by a small semi-judicial Committee which hears evidence from the promoters and from petitioners against the Bill. At Second Reading stage the House has the opportunity of directing that Committee's attention to any aspect of any problem relevant to the Bill and if that course had been adopted in this case the Committee would have had the opportunity of examining witnesses on the point. But the case is very different now. The Bill has been through Committee in both Houses and after this dual examination the hon. Member is now proposing to add new matter to the Bill. In my view, this action is not in accordance with the traditional procedure.
I repeat that I am not concerned with the merits of this Clause. Nor am I complaining that the hon. Member put it forward. He is quite within his rights to do so and to express his views in support of the Clause but I hope, having stated his views, he will not press for the inclusion of the Clause in the Bill, for the reasons I have given.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I want to intervene very briefly in the debate on the proposed Clause, and I can do so with rather greater confidence now having heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo). As one with some personal knowledge of electricity supply affairs and of trade union matters in the industry, I felt at an earlier stage that the principle put forward by my hon. Friend was an excellent one and one which I fully support, but I wondered whether it was right to attach such a big and important principle to quite so small a peg.
It also seemed a little hard to me that the nationalised electricity supply industry which is responsible for constructing this generating station and the light railway and tunnel empowered by the Bill—an industry which on the whole has a very good history of labour relations—should be smeared, even by accident, with any suggestion of support for vicious anti-trade union practices. Of course, my

hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that that was not his intention when he spoke.
I have made inquiry of the Central Electricity Authority and as I thought was the case it assured me it has been and remains completely its policy to employ as many trade unionists as possible and so far as its contractors are concerned it ensures that the Fair Wages Clause is enforced. As my hon. Friend said, a very eminent nobleman, a member of another place, who is an ex-general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, is head of the organisation. It would seem extraordinary if he were to countenance these bad anti-trade union practices of which my hon. Friend has spoken.
Another reason why I felt it right to intervene, although my fears have again largely been put to rest, was that it seemed to me that this proposed Clause might imply that the trade unions in the electricity supply industry—I think there are ten with negotiating agreements with the Electricity Authority and area boards—were not capable of looking after their own affairs and of managing the labour relations policy of the industry. I am sure my hon. Friend knows already that if those of us concerned with trade union matters in the nationalised electricity supply industry thought that the Authority was indulging in the practices of which he spoke, with or without his proposed Clause, we should take the strongest exception.
I understand that my hon. Friend proposes to withdraw the Motion and in that case any danger that the electricity supply industry would be accused of joining in these vicious actions will be removed. Perhaps on another occasion my hon. Friend may find another more guilty industry for his attention.

Mr. Mikardo: In the light of what has been said by the Chairman of Ways and Means and the guidance he has given the House—for which I am very grateful—and assuring my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) that I appreciate his industrial patriotism, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read the Third time.

GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 231.
I move the Motion with some diffidence, but feel that I ought to do so because I have personal experience of the operation of a Clause of this nature. Perhaps I ought to read the Clause. It states:
Any agreement entered into by or on behalf of the Council with the parent or guardian of a pupil or intended pupil at any secondary school may make provision for the payment by such parent or guardian to the Council of any sum not exceeding ten pounds in the event of the pupil ceasing without the consent of the Council to attend such school before the date fixed by such agreement for the pupil to cease such attendance and the Council shall be entitled without proof of any actual damage incurred by reason of such pupil ceasing to attend such school to recover from such parent or guardian any sum not exceeding the sum specified in the agreement which the court may think fit to award in all the circumstances of the case.
Subsection (2) of the Clause carries definitions, with which I will not weary the House.
I apologise for taking up the time of the House, but I am sure that hon. Members will grant me indulgence to speak at a little length in support of my arguments for the Motion. The matter of school-life agreements has never been discussed in the House. So far, no Minister of the Crown has sought these powers in any public Bill. It is true that since 1945 power has been granted by Select Committees to about twenty local authorities. On the other hand, in the last few years three authorities have been denied these powers. In two cases, the Bills were unopposed and came before a panel of Members appointed for that purpose, with the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means in the Chair. As the House will know, that Committee has the assistance of Mr. Speaker's Counsel.
This is, I agree, a matter of national concern. It was regarded as so important by the previous Minister of Education that she referred the matter to the Central

Advisory Council for Education (England) at the end of 1952. These were its terms of reference:
To consider what factors influence the age at which boys and girls leave secondary schools which provide courses beyond the minimum school-leaving age; to what extent it is desirable to increase the proportion of those who remain at school, in particular the proportion of those who remain at school roughly to the age of 18; and what steps should be taken to secure such an increase.
In the autumn of 1954, the Committee presented a unanimous Report to the Minister of Education. It was printed in 1954 and reprinted in 1955, and is entitled "Early Leaving." The Committee consisted of twenty eminent people in education, including Sir Ronald Gould, the General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers. The Report covers ninety-nine pages and represents an exhaustive survey of the question. It might be regarded as the verdict of the finest jury of impartial experts that could be obtained.
Paragraph 185, on pages 60 and 61 of the Report, contains the crux of the Committee's conclusions so far as this debate is concerned. It states:
we … do not feel able to recommend, for reasons which we have fully set out … the general adoption of school-life agreements.
All of us in this House will agree that a grammar school education is the natural birthright of every child in the land who is of appropriate age and has the ability and aptitude to profit by it. Clause 231 of the Bill, however, seeks to modify a child's birthright. It means that a child can be denied a grammar school education if the parent refuses to sign the school agreement.
It is true that the promoters and Parliamentary Agents for the Bill have issued a document, which most of us, I suppose, received this morning, saying that the county council would be prepared to qualify the demand that an agreement must be signed. I can, however, speak with experience. Before the war, in the area where I live and where I was the district education officer, it was part of my duty to require parents to sign agreements of this kind. Some parents refused utterly to agree to allow a child to take up a grammar school education because of the possibility of a financial penalty four or five years later. I tried to persuade the parents that the local authority would be indulgent and


other members of the committee tried to do the same, but the fact that the penalty existed was sufficient to deter those parents from signing the agreement for the child to enter the school.
It may be said that the parents were unreasonable, and that may be true, but I assure the House that they were not careless people. They were not the type of people who would have withdrawn their children before completing their school course. When giving the matter thought, everyone will realise that the very parent against whom this proposed legislation would operate would care nothing about signing any agreement. That parent would be just as careless about signing an agreement as he would be later, perhaps, in withdrawing the child. I would say, therefore, from my experience, that the reservation which is suggested by the Parliamentary Agents is utterly worthless.
Because some children do not complete the school course, innocent children can be penalised. It is a strange doctrine that a child must suffer the penalty of all the misdeeds of the parents of other children, for that is what it amounts to. I think that there can be no precedent in our public Acts for such a penalty. I think that it is not too strong a term to use to call it an immoral penalty. The great Education Act of 1944 was passed through this House with the acclamation of every right-thinking person in the land. We set out to confer the right on every child of suitable age, ability and aptitude to have a grammar school education, but here this is being whittled away not by public legislation but by private Bills. I will seek to show presently that this enactment would be of doubtful validity. I think that perhaps it might be more appropriate if I justified my argument a little later.
The whole conception of this penalty is that it rests on the type of agreement which operated between the proprietors of private schools and the parents of scholars before there were any county secondary schools at all. There it was a case of damages. The proprietor of the school agreed to provide the education, to engage the staff necessary to do so, and required an agreement from the parents that no child should be withdrawn without a term's notice of withdrawal being given.
When public secondary schools came into being, they had a majority of fee payers as pupils, and this type of penalty clause was incorporated in the prospectus of the public grammar schools. It continued until the great Act of 1944. It is noticeable that Clause 231 uses the words:
… without proof of any actual damage …
It has been found necessary to insert those saving words. I am not a lawyer, and I am, therefore, unable to say what validity those words may have, but I am a little doubtful about it. Therefore, it not being something for damages which a local authority may have suffered, it becomes a penalty, and I think that we are all entitled to call it a penalty Clause and to consider it in that light when we vote, as I shall ask the House presently to vote, unless those who are supporting the Gloucestershire County Council are prepared to withdraw the Clause.
The Act of 1944 has altered the position entirely because it is now the statutory duty of the local education authority to provide grammar school education—or, at least, secondary school education; the grammar school is not mentioned in the 1944 Act. So the local authorities have no option but to provide this. This postwar school-life agreement is really of doubtful value, and the Committee does not recommend it.
I would quote from paragraph 26 of the Education Report of 1954. It says:
The Central Advisory Council for Education for England completed their inquiry into the problem of premature school-leaving, and their Report on this subject was published in December. The Council found that the proportion of boys and girls leaving grammar schools at all ages below 18 declined, both in relation to the pre-war years and from year to year since the war.
So that, although in the early post-war years there may have been some justification for considering a penalty, today I would say that that time had passed. I would say, too, that if there is to be some payment by the parent for withdrawing a child before he has completed his school life or his school curriculum and the courses he has undertaken, then it should be by a penalty in a Public Act of Parliament and not by the back-door method of a Private Bill.
I would like to read paragraphs 58 and 59 of the Report on Early Leaving, which


will be found on pages 23 and 24. Paragraph 58 states:
It has been suggested that the use of school-life agreements should be widely extended and their enforcement legalised by general Act of Parliament. We see great difficulties in this suggestion. In the first place, it is not clear how effective these agreements are. It would be impossible for any authority in present circumstances to enforce a leaving-age of 16 for all grammar school pupils without exception; they must often have to make exceptions in cases of hardship or of limited academic ability. It then becomes difficult to maintain a standard. On the other hand, if enforcement is attempted there is no assurance that it will be effective; the normal penalty of £10 is not likely to deter a parent who sees that his child can earn as much in a few weeks at work, and any great increase might well deter parents from sending their children to grammar schools.
Paragraph 59 reads:
But there is a more fundamental reason for our doubts about these agreements. The signing of the agreement takes place before the child is admitted to the grammar school, and clearly it is, implicitly and explicitly, a condition of his admission. What happens if the parent refuses to sign? If he is honest, and clear-sighted enough to look four years ahead, he may well do so. The authority must then either refuse the child a place or waive their claim to an agreement. We have heard of an authority which follows the latter course, but a requirement which a determined parent can evade in this way contains an element of bluff and will not long be respected.
On the other hand, it seems very doubtful indeed whether it would be either legal or proper to refuse to admit the child to the grammar school. The authority have presumably satisfied themselves that a grammar school education is suitable to his ability and aptitude, and the conditions which they seek to impose have nothing to do with either. If the parent refuses to send his child to any other school and school attendance proceedings have to be taken, extremely awkward legal and administrative questions may arise if the parent, as he is entitled to do, asks the Minister to specify the grammar school as the school to be named in the school attendance order.
A similar situation would result from an appeal by the parent to the Minister to decide whether there had been a contravention of the grant regulation requiring that a child should not be refused admission to a school on other than reasonable grounds. Indeed, quite apart from the legality of the matter, it seems to us entirely wrong to exclude a qualified boy or girl from a grammar school because his parents are more honest than other parents who sign the agreement without any firm intention of keeping it.
I must ask the indulgence of the House to quote a little from paragraph 60, which states:
… and if any support is given to the notion that the 'grammar school course' ends

at 16 the building up of sixth forms may suffer. On the other hand, these schools contain widely varying proportions of pupils who find great difficulty in grammar school work. Many of those would do better in other types of secondary school and might be transferred at an earlier stage; but if they remain there there is no special ground for keeping them at school beyond the general leaving-age. From the school's point of view, their staying is as likely to unsettle other boys and girls as their leaving; from their own point of view it will seem that boys and girls who have not been at grammar schools are getting a year's start in their jobs.
I would draw attention to another aspect of this problem. The selection age for children to go to the grammar school is generally one before puberty starts. Who can prophesy what puberty may do to a child's mental or physical capacity? We all know there can be very great changes. Paragraph 34 of the Early Leaving Report states that
During five years of the grammar school course a large number of pupils have shifted their position in academic order … there is heavy wastage … among those originally placed high.
Those with any experience of the working of a grammar school know perfectly well that children who do brilliantly in the entrance test often fail to develop along those lines and drop to very low positions in their forms. That is a very common feature of grammar school life.
Another paragraph in the Report refers to widespread changes in the academic order of these children between the ages of 11 and 18 years. Paragraph 36 refers to the intake into grammar schools, that is, the number of children entering them during a specific year. There are great divergencies between one authority and another, but the average for the country as a whole is 20. The Report states:
… to secure from the bottom third of intake three pupils who will do very creditably in a grammar school it has been necessary to accept five who will do pretty badly.
I need not labour the elementary point that a third of the intake is 33⅓ per cent.
Therefore, of eight children in that 33⅓ per cent., five will do badly, and five-eighths of one-third makes about 20 per cent. We find, therefore, that one in five of all children entering a grammar school is likely to do badly. These are not my figures. They are contained in this Report on Early Leaving, which is unanimously presented to the Minister of Education and presented by him to the House.
Actually, we find that the percentage of premature leavers is much less than 20. I will show presently from the statistics in the Report on Education for 1954, presented to the Minister, that the percentage is about 13·5. I should like to ask Gloucestershire County Council spokesmen what provision is made by Gloucestershire for this 20 per cent. who may never make the grade. I am afraid that the reply will be, "Almost nothing."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It seems to me that the hon. Member is now going beyond the provisions of the Clause and is raising matters with which the Clause does not deal.

Mr. Hayman: I am sorry, but I was endeavouring to say that many of these pupils, according to the Report, are not likely to be able to stay the course of five years.
I should like to know what Gloucestershire does to provide for them, but I will not pursue the subject except to say that where there are technical colleges and technical secondary schools it ought to be possible to arrange for the transfer of the pupils from the grammar school to the technical college. I know that obstacles are raised by the authorities to what would seem to me to be reasonable provisions of that kind.
Since we are asked to approve of a penalty Clause of this kind, are we to assume that the county council itself is entirely blameless? If the council seeks a penalty against the parent, cannot the parent seek a penalty against the local authority which has not provided the best grammar school education that the parent might expect? Are all the teachers of top grade? We know that they cannot be. We have had to recognise that it is very difficult to dismiss a teacher whose services are unsatisfactory, for the reason that he may never be able to obtain a job in another school. The situation is very different from that in other professions and, reasonably, the governing bodies of grammar schools and local education authorities are very reluctant to take a drastic step of that kind.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am very reluctant to intervene, but these are really not matters within the scope of the Clause.

Mr. Hayman: I hope that I shall be in order in quoting some Questions which

I put to the Minister of Education on 24th November, 1955, and his replies. I wanted to find out what really happens to children who complete the school course and stay on at least until they are 16 years of age.
I asked:
How many, and what percentage of eligible grammar school pupils, over the age of 16 years at the latest convenient date, left school without taking the General Certificate Examination?
The reply was:
This information is not available.
I also asked:
How many grammar school pupils, at the latest convenient date, sat for the General Certificate Examination; how many failed in all subjects taken; and how many, in each category, were over 16 years of age.
The reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary was:
In the summer of 1954 144,362 grammar school pupils took the General Certificate Examination, of whom 131,903 were over 16. It is not known how many of these failed in all subjects taken."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1955; Vol. 546, c. 141-142.]
This means that we have no evidence before us from which to discover what happens when children are compelled to stay at school when their parents or others feel that they are not likely to benefit by remaining. I would say that there is a fairly substantial percentage of children who fail in that examination.
I will go further and ask the House to consider the following point. If the Clause is approved it will mean that the local education committee will be the complainant, the prosecutor, the jury and the judge in its own case. It is a case of a court sitting behind closed doors to which the public have no access and a penalty can be imposed on a parent——

Mr. Ede: If my hon. Friend reads the Clause he will find that the last line but one of subsection (1) reads "which the court may think fit to award." It has to be dealt with by the court of summary jurisdiction. It is not a penalty imposed by the local education authority.

Mr. Hayman: With great respect, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is not the court of summary jurisdiction which is referred to here, but the county court.

Mr. Ede: I still think it is the court of summary jurisdiction.

Mr. Hayman: I also suggest to my right hon. Friend that very few cases ever come to the county court and that the decision is made not only by the education committee, but by the subcommittee of the education committee. If a penalty is desirable the case should go before a proper court of law, just as a parent who does not send his child to school can be prosecuted before a court of summary jurisdiction. Those of us who have had anything to do with local authorities know that many of these penalties are never collected and eventually have to be written off as irrecoverable. Again, it is the better parent who is penalised, because he pays, rather than the parent who does not care very much.
The Report on Education for 1954 shows that in all 22,566 children left the grammar schools for further full-time education. At the age of 15, 13,628 left for paid employment or other reasons and at 16, 37,103 left for those reasons. For all reasons 89,095 left the grammar schools. This shows that 13,628 left at the age of 15 for paid employment or for other reasons, which represents 15·3 per cent. of the total number of leavers.
A further modification must be made because these figures are taken at the end of the school year, which is 31st July, and a child who reaches his sixteenth birthday before the autumn term begins about the middle of September, will be counted as having left at 15. This represents nearly one-seventh of the total of this section of leavers, which could be reduced thereby to 12,054 or about 13·5er cent. I do not claim that those figures are exact, but they give a fairly good picture of what is happening.
I would also ask the House to take into account some further statistics in the 1954 Report for students at the technical schools and technical colleges. There, part-time day students of 15 years of age on 1st August, 1953, were 58,064 and in the evening classes there were 166,078. I believe that many of the children who leave grammar schools at the age of 15 are part-time day students at the technical colleges because they have gone into industry and are sent there by their employers, but there are no figures to show the precise numbers.
Now I want to comment on the statement sent to us by the promoters of the Bill. In page 2 there is a list of pupils

so withdrawn from certain grammar schools for the years 1938–39 and from 1945–46 up to 1954–55. They are as follows: for 1938–39, 232; 1945–46, 245; 1946–47, 416; 1947–48, 444; 1948–49, 492; 1949–50, 473; 1950–51, 383; 1951– 52, 317; 1952–53, 344; 1953–54, 329; 1954–55, 245.
Now, 245 is almost exactly half of the highest figure of 492 in 1948 to 1949. Not only has a drop occurred, but the figure fell last year to 245 from 329 in 1953 to 1954. I suggest that since Gloucester has not had a penalty Clause, there is no reason for this. We have not been given any figures to show the total number of pupils leaving these grammar schools, so we have no means of finding the percentage.
Also, no reference is made in this statement to the very cogent Report by the Central Advisory Council for Education from which I have quoted rather freely. It is the standard document. The Parliamentary agents are a little at fault in not giving some indication about it to hon. Members who may not have known that such a Report existed.
I would ask those who speak for Gloucestershire whether they consulted the Minister and, if so, what advice he gave. I have obtained some figures from the Library from which it appears that the percentage of school leavers in Gloucestershire is roughly the same as the average for the country, and those leaving before completing the school course is also about the same as the average for the country. Therefore, no special conditions obtain in Gloucestershire.
I would ask the House to remember that the Central Advisory Council has stressed that a percentage of up to 20 of the children going into grammar schools will fail intellectually to stay the course. That is something that we must accept. The tendency is for the figures to improve; I have shown that they have improved by 50 per cent. in Gloucestershire over four or five years, and there has been a great improvement over the whole country. I would ask the House to consider whether there may not be some relationship between these figures for the post-war years and juvenile crime, which may have been partly the result of the disturbing conditions of the war.
The Parliamentary counsel for the Monmouthshire County Council had this to say about school agreements on 10th November, 1955, before a Select Committee of this House:
It has always been a matter of debate, and has occasionally been a matter of legal decision, which I confess, to the advantage of my profession has sometimes gone one way and sometimes the other, whether such agreements are enforceable. It depends upon a highly technical point, whether the sum of £10, or whatever it may be is an honest assessment of liquidated damages made in advance or whether it is merely a penalty for not carrying out your agreement. In the first case it is recoverable and in the second case it is not.
There we have an eminent barrister telling a Select Committee that there is a doubt about it.
I appeal to the House to support my Motion. I feel that, although only a few children may be deprived of a grammar school education because their parents are not prepared to allow them to enter a school while a penalty agreement remains, not one child ought to be sacrificed in this way. It may be said that the child might have displaced someone else; but that other child might not have stayed the course. I know men and women who have been denied a gramar school education because of such a Clause as this.
The Minister has said that there does not seem to be a case for general legislation to prevent the inclusion of this type of penalty Clause in school agreements. As he is not prepared to ask for general powers which have been advised by an eminent Committee, I ask the House to support me, in the Division Lobby if necessary.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Holt: I beg to second the Motion.
I do not think I can add any new arguments to what has been said by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) because he has very fully covered the case against the Clause. I am sure that hon. Members who have encountered this problem in their constituencies—my own town has such a Clause in its legislation—will have found it in practice to be thoroughly offensive in every possible way.
I think this is what has happened. When it is generally considered that there

has been some misuse by parents of the welfare part of our education—the free education—somebody says "We must stop it. We do not know how to stop it. Let us see whether we can fine somebody." This is the sort of thing that has happened in other parts of our welfare system as it has grown up. People consider that there are abuses. Not knowing the right way to deal with them, they say "If only we can fine somebody, that will stop the practice." It is entirely a matter of expediency, and so is the Clause.
The arguments are very fully set out in the Report presented to the Minister. The problem is simply that at the age of 11 children are selected for further education. The implication of a fine is that that selection was right. If it is once admitted that the selection may not be correct, the parent has a perfect right, when his child is 15, to say "In view of his development since, he ought not to have been selected for a grammar school education, he is wasting his time, and I propose to withdraw him from the school course."
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne produced evidence that far more children are staying on in the grammar schools wasting their time than are leaving and becoming subject to a fine. Whether or not the figure of 20 per cent. which he gave is true, there is something wrong, and there is a problem. The proper thing to do is not to look around for some parents to fine but to discover what is wrong and then see whether some solution can be devised. That is what the Committee was asked to investigate, and that is what it has done. I urge the House no longer to support the inclusion by authorities in their Measures of a Clause which does not solve the problem, and, in relation to parents, creates gross injustice throughout the country.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I have great pleasure in supporting the plea that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) and the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt). I should like to make clear from the outset that none of us who take this view has any sympathy with the parent who frivolously and without very grave reason, but tempted by the immediate possibility of a high wage for a youngster, takes his


son away from a grammar school before the boy has reached the age of 16. There is a very great deal to be said for a child staying in a grammar school beyond the age of 16. The parent who takes his child away at the age of 15 for the reason I have mentioned does injury to the community and does the child a great wrong.
Therefore, the objective which I suppose the promoters of the Bill have in mind is praiseworthy enough. They are looking for a way of dealing with a problem of early leaving, but what we have to consider is whether the device of a school-life agreement is good in itself. Is it a proper method to employ and has it any real relevance to the problem? This is a matter about which it is difficult to be dogmatic. If one studies the figures and finds that from year to year the number of early leavers has gone up or down, there is still plenty of room for argument about the cause of that variation.
The remarkable thing is that such evidence as has been provided to us by the promoters of the Bill points in a direction opposite from that which they desire. I should like to develop one or two more points in addition to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne which emerge from consideration of that evidence. We are provided by Gloucestershire with the total figure of leavers under the age of 16 from grammar schools in a number of given years. What we are not told is what proportion that was of the number of children who entered the schools.
In the paper which has been sent to us we are given two possible indications of what the total number of children concerned might be. One describes the schools as being of one, two, three, four, form entry and mentions that a form is normally 30 to 35 children. On that analysis it would appear that about 1,500 children are the annual intake into all schools concerned. In another paragraph we are given the figure of 344 premature leavers in 1952, or between one-third and one-quarter of the intake. That would give a figure of about 1,000 children.
Throughout these years the number of children concerned, of which these figures of early leavers are proportions, may have varied between 1,000 and 1,500. The figures, therefore, tell us nothing about whether the problem of early leavers has

become more or less serious in Gloucestershire during the period under consideration. However, let us suppose that that error is not there and that these absolute "crude figures," as the statisticians call them, represent about the proportion of the intake which leaves.
In that case, the conclusion to which we are bound to come is that to which my hon. Friend has already drawn attention. It is that Gloucestershire is apparently well on its way to solving the problem, without the assistance of a penalty Clause. It is a very interesting and a very encouraging development, if we can place any reliance on the figures, and I am charitably omitting the fact I previously mentioned that they are merely crude figures. We cannot be sure how significant the figures are, but, if they are significant, they show that in the naturally disturbed years immediately after the war there was a high proportion of premature leavers and previously a penalty Clause. Now that we do not have one, instead of that aggravating the situation, we are now triumphantly getting on top of it, and are now in the situation where the number of premature leavers is just thirteen higher than the pre-war figure when there was a penalty.
No one in his senses wants to impose penalties, fines and restrictions for the sake of so doing. Once it were established that there was at least a strong likelihood that the penalty would help to cure a grave abuse, the position would be different, but all the evidence which we have so far is in the opposite direction.
We have to add to that that there are certain general reasons of policy that could be advanced against the school-life agreement as a method of dealing with the early leaver. I shall not detain the House by stating those reasons, because my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bolton, West, have very forcibly drawn the attention of the House to them, but I may be excused for again reading one quotation from the Report on Early Leaving, because it seems to go to the heart of the matter. It says:
… quite apart from the legality of the matter, it seems to us entirely wrong to exclude a qualified boy or girl from a grammar school because his parents are more honest than other parents who sign the agreement without any firm intention of keeping it.


If we admit the desirability of having a separate organisation for secondary education, with grammar, technical and modern schools—I do not like ft, but for the moment our discussion is on that basis—when the child goes to grammar school, the assumption has presumably been made and some attempt made to get evidence for that assumption that the child is fit for grammar school education. It would not be only the parent who wanted the child to go to a grammar school. The local education authority would have committed itself to the view that the child should go to a grammar school.
If later the parent is saying, "I want to take the child away," and if the child is saying, "I want to leave school prematurely," one blames the parent or the child, but it also suggests that the estimate of the child at the age of 11 which was made by the education authority may not have been correct. I believe that this attempt to estimate ability at the age of 11 is a very great mistake, but it is not a mistake for which parents should be asked to pay.
The attempt to impose a penalty should not be made as is done here in a way which will frighten from grammar school education some of the more timorous, perhaps more prudent, and, as the Report suggests, the more honest parent. The feckless fellow will put his name to anything, and if there is any question of enforcing a penalty the probability is that the boy, after being taken away from school prematurely, will himself recoup his parents for anything the courts may award against them, so that the penalty is not even likely to be effective.
One's general common sense and knowledge confirms the judgment which both the Gloucestershire figures and the national figures suggest. It is that what is proposed is not an effective penalty and that it has no relation to the problem of early leaving. In conclusion, I will risk drawing the attention of the House to one aspect of the problem. It was touched on but not developed by the hon. Member for Bolton, West.
There are other ways of dealing with this problem and, as he said, this habit of looking round for someone to fine, in the hope that in that way an important social problem may be dealt with, presents

the danger that it may blind one to other more constructive ways of dealing with it. In the memorandum we have received from the promoters of the Bill there is no mention of any constructive steps which they have taken to deal with the problem. As the Report suggests, there are plenty which could be taken.
What is done in Gloucestershire about maintenance allowances? How does the authority there compare with other authorities in that respect? That is one of the matters to which the Report draws attention. It is stated that a number of children leave grammar schools prematurely because they have not the facilities at home to do their homework properly, and they feel that, in their difficult home circumstances, they are lagging behind their comrades at school.
It is suggested that a progressive and constructively-minded local education authority would endeavour to keep in touch with the home circumstances of the children and give what help it could to make provision, either in school premises or in some other way, for children who have difficulty in doing their homework at home; and to provide a place where it may be done comfortably.
Another reason why children may leave a grammar school prematurely—we are not told whether Gloucestershire has any problem of the kind—is that education may be conceived too narrowly by the particular grammar school. I should not subscribe to the view that a child's time at grammar school is necessarily wasted if he does not do well in the General Certificate examination or even if the examination is not taken. It is a good thing to take the examination, and it is always a good thing, when taking an examination, to try to do well. But do not let us imagine that is the sole measuring rod as to whether time at a grammar school has been wasted or not.
Obviously, if we are to offer anything like proper opportunities to all our young people, we have to be prepared to accept the fact that some will get into the grammar school who do not appear to be especially gifted academically. A grammar school ought to see that its curriculum gives special attention to the needs of those who are more gifted than the average and to those who are less gifted than the average. If we make a


grammar school a kind of bed of Procrustes, we cannot complain if as many patients as possible get off as quickly as possible. That may be one reason why some authorities have the problem of early leaving.
One could also go to the professional bodies and say, "Have you considered that if you required rather higher initial qualifications for getting into the profession, it would provide a more powerful incentive for more children to stay at grammar schools longer in order to acquire them?" Local authorities who are worried about this problem might approach the professional bodies on that matter. What part have they taken in trying to implement any of the many useful and constructive suggestions contained in the Report on Early Leaving?
I hope that I have not been doing an injustice to the Gloucestershire authority. For all I know, it may have done all the things about which I have spoken, but if so, why have we not been told? Had it said, "We have done our best to implement all the positive and constructive recommendations in the Report, and we still find the problem is getting worse," what a case for a penalty the council would have been able to bring forward. But the authority does not mention a single constructive step which has been taken to deal with this problem; and despite that, the problem is apparently becoming easier for it. Unless it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the proposal will reduce the number of early leavers—and I do not think that anyone has come within a hundred miles of showing that—I hope that the House will agree that the Clause be left out of the Bill.

8.34 p.m.

Captain F. V. Corfield: I wish to oppose this Clause and I regret that it has been brought forward for discussion in this Chamber. It introduces no new principle. It was not only common in Gloucestershire and elsewhere before the war but, as was stated by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman), it has been included in 25 Private Acts of Parliament in the last ten years. It seems to me that the Private Bill procedure is specifically designed for putting forward views and countering questions such as were referred to by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). This is not the sort of

Clause which can properly be thrashed out on the Floor of the House.
As the point has been raised, it might be of some use if I refer briefly to some of the considerations which have led Gloucestershire County Council, to my knowledge, to the belief that the Clause will help to increase the efficiency of education in Gloucestershire. First, there are its own experiences. Hon. Members opposite have gone too far in interpreting the figures of the last two years as a definite trend which shows that the problem is curing itself. Taking the period as a whole, there is no doubt that the number of children leaving grammar schools before the age of 16 has substantially increased since before the war.
This must be a matter of concern to any local education authority. It is a wastage of effort which we simply cannot afford. It is not only a wastage of educational effort, or of the potentialities of the pupils concerned; it is also a denial of opportunity to other children Who would have been willing to take those places and run the full course. It is all very well, as the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne remarked, to regard a grammar school education as the birthright of any child who can qualify for it, but it is surely no part of that child's birthright to deny that education to some other child because its parents are not willing to make full use of it.
This is a burning question in my constituency, where the population growth has been considerably greater on the periphery of the great City of Bristol than in other parts of the country, and where there is a correspondingly greater pressure upon grammar school places. I welcome almost any reasonable Measure which will help to make sure that such places as exist are used to the very best advantage. It is relevant to state that the heads of grammar schools in all parts of the country are in favour of the Clause.
Hon. Members opposite have raised the question whether some children prove at a later date that they were not, perhaps, the best selection for a grammar school education, but it is the headmasters who are by far in the best position to judge whether or not that is so. There can be no question of any education authority, let alone any court, granting a penalty


when a child is removed upon the recommendation of the headmaster of a school.
This is not a purely local matter. Only a few days ago I read in The Timesthat it is causing very considerable concern in Scotland. No fewer than 25 local authorities have thought it right to include such a Clause as this in their local legislation in the last ten years. The Clerk to the Gloucestershire County Council has circularised those local authorities in order to discover their reactions to the Clause. Eleven authorities have replied emphatically to the effect that they have found the Clause useful, and are convinced of its value; eight have stated that, as their Bills are of very recent origin, they have not had sufficient time from which to draw a conclusion, and only three believe that it has been of very little value.
A recent case in the county courts was concerned with the question whether or not there can be legal enforcement of the Clause. That, in a sense, begs the question, because the value of the Clause lies far more in its existence than its enforcement. Local authorities are finding that it is a means of impressing upon parents the importance of allowing their children to complete their courses in grammar schools.

Mr. Holt: Do I understand the hon. and gallant Member to advocate threats, without any intention of carrying them out? That is just what he said.

Captain Corfield: I did not say anything of the sort. I said that enforcement was very rare indeed. It is not of very great importance to dwell upon the question whether or not it will be enforced in a large number of cases.
The point is that local authorities find that this power is of use in impressing upon parents the importance of allowing their children to run the full course. What is much more important is that it helps to impress upon parents that the winning of a grammar school place imposes not only a right but a duty, and that is a very good thing indeed.
Questions have been raised about the very occasional cases in which parents have refused to sign this agreement, and about the effect that this may have on the children. Of the 25 local authorities who have this power, only two have reported cases of parents refusing to sign.
Manchester Corporation reported one case where the refusal was on religious grounds and in which affirmation was accepted in lieu. Essex County Council have had cases, in which the children did, in fact, take their places in grammar schools. The Clerk to the Gloucestershire County Council, when asked to state the views of his council in this matter, replied in the following terms:
I can find no record of any Gloucestershire parent refusing to sign the agreement, and, indeed, in my experience over three counties I have never known anybody refuse to sign. If anybody did refuse to sign on grounds of conscience, I think that the course we would take would be either to see the parent ourselves or to ask somebody on behalf of the governors to see the parent, and, provided it appeared that the parent was keen on his child's having a grammar school education, and made it clear that it was his honest intention to keep him at school to enable him to finish the course, I am quite sure we would accept that. Indeed, a parent with such a scrupulous conscience might be better material than the person who makes the ordinary declaration, but it would be impracticable to make a personal approach to all parents in this matter and the willingness to sign an agreement with a penalty attached is a simple and clear indication and one easily obtained.'
That is the crux of the problem. It is obviously important to bring home to parents personally and individually the importance of this matter. I ask the House to reject the Motion and to allow the matter to be thrashed out in Committee upstairs.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) has expressed strong views. I must confess that they failed to convince me and I hope that they will fail to convince the House as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said that he spoke with experience. I know he has experience of the education service, and his views are, therefore, entitled to respect. I, too, have had experience, not in the same sense. but as governor of two grammar schools in my constituency.
I know very well the effect of early leavers upon the morale of a school. We frequently have a headmaster complaining that owing to the early leaving of this or that boy or girl whom he knows is promising there has been a bad moral effect upon the form. We have considered that matter many times during the last


five or six years, and it cannot be ignored. It is the duty of the governors of a grammar school like those upon the boards of which I have the honour to sit to advise the county council in these matters. Our schools have not been the only ones with this experience.
The Gloucestershire County Council has felt compelled to take action in this Bill. It is asking only for the same powers as have been granted to 25 other local education authorities. The authorities had those powers until 1939, but they were thought to be unenforceable under the 1944 Education Act and special power had to be sought from Parliament to re-establish the position.
Much play has been made with the figures of early leavers supplied by the Gloucestershire County Council. From 235 in 1938–39 the figure rose to its peak of 473 in 1949–50, but since then has fallen to a figure only 15 above that reported when the penalty clause existed. It is difficult to estimate exactly what the cost is, but surely it was sufficiently serious during those years. I remember very well that when the figure rose to 473 our board of governors frequently had to consider the position. We were spending considerable sums of the ratepayers' and taxpayers' money on those who did not make use of the education of which they were thought capable of taking advantage.
The hon. and gallant Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield) has mentioned the very important point that in certain growing industrial areas—he mentioned a district near Bristol, and I know of certain areas in the north of my constituency—house building has exceeded the supply of schools. The result is a terrific demand for secondary education which cannot be met. The authorities in the area which I have in mind want to send the children to schools in the City of Gloucester, but the education authority there, naturally, does not like to have such a large school population forced upon it and objects. The fact remains that in certain areas the demand for secondary education is tremendous.
It is the duty of an education authority to see that all those who are considered to be able to make use of secondary education shall be given it, but there may be cases where examinations have failed to select the right pupils, or where they later

develop differently from expectations. In such cases the child is not compelled to go on. We have had cases in our own grammar school where, for a number of reasons, parents have asked permission to withdraw their children before the course is over and have been granted it. I am sure that in the county there are children who have clearly not lived up to what was expected of them and have been withdrawn from the school by the education authority. That really answers the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne and those who support him, that there are children being forced to carry on with a secondary education for which they are not fitted. That is not the case in Gloucestershire, and I think that our education system there bears comparison with that of any county in the United Kingdom.
Nor must we forget that the cost to the taxpayer of keeping a child in a secondary school is £63 per annum. Gloucestershire County Council alone is now spending £¾ million per annum on grammar school education—a figure which includes the cost of transport, grants, maintenance allowances, and so on. That is a very serious matter. This money is provided by the taxpayer and the ratepayer and it is necessary to see that it is properly used and that the ratepayer and the taxpayer gets full value for his money. In view of the fact that our higher education is of the utmost value to us from the point of view of our position in the world, of our industrial efficiency and our export trade by which we live, surely we must see that it reaches the highest possible standard.
It may be doubted whether £10 is a sufficient penalty, but I think it is. It is perhaps not so much a question of the money as of the moral effect of asking a parent to sign a document which makes it clear to him that this education is of great value. The mere signing of the document will have the necessary effect. Statistics of the Gloucestershire County Council show that the year after the abolition of the penalty Clause the figures rose at once. There is every reason to think that the Clause will have the moral effect which I regard as necessary. People do not value things unless they have to make some sacrifice for them. They value something for which they have paid.
The difficulty has been and still is that some parents do not appreciate the value of secondary education to the child. They allow their child to begin the course, but after a year or two the child wants to leave in order to earn good money in a factory and they say, "Let him go." That has happened in the grammar school about which I know. Some have fallen to the attraction of the Gloucester aircraft factory and the good wages paid there.
I hope the House will take the view that this is a vital Clause in the Bill and will reject the Motion.

8.53 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): It may be helpful to the House if I intervene at this stage, I hope very briefly, to indicate the attitude of my right hon. Friend to school life agreements and their relationship to the problem of early leaving. I think it is obvious to all that it should be our policy to encourage the appropriate pupils to stay on beyond school-leaving age.
The increasing opportunities available in secondary education, together with the great possibilities which are becoming available as the plans for technical education and development are unfolded, make it vital that the abilities of boys and girls are developed to the full. I understand the House to be in full agreement on that point, and it was the reason for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Dame Florence Horsbrugh) decided, in 1952, to ask the Central Advisory Council for Education to investigate the problem of early leaving.
As a result of those investigations the Council produced what I personally consider a most excellent Report, to which much reference has been made in this debate. That Report revealed that a large number of pupils could with advantage have remained at school. I think it equally important, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) for making the point, to appreciate that the position has not deteriorated over the country as a whole during the last fifteen or twenty years. It has in fact been steadily improving since before the war.
I do not want to weary the House with figures, but I think that a few figures are

relevant. Taking first the percentage of pupils who stay beyond their eighteenth birthday—which is something we want to encourage—in 1927 the figure was 15·7 per cent. In 1930 it had0 fallen to 10·6 per cent. By 1945, at the conclusion of the war, it had risen again to 15·2 per cent. and in 1948 it had risen to 29·6 per cent. The years to which I refer are the years of school entry and, therefore, in fact applied to pupils leaving four or five years later. Hon. Members will see that in the 1948 entry the percentage of those who stayed over the age of 18 was double the corresponding percentage for the 1945 entry.
If we take the other side of the case, those who left grammar schools before they were 16—something we want to discourage—the figures are equally encouraging. In 1927 the figure was 27·3 per cent. That, unfortunately, had risen by 1930 to 32·7 per cent. At the end of the war it had fallen to 24·3 per cent. and in 1948, again the figure for the entry year, it had fallen to 16·3 per cent. The latest figure available for the national average is 146 per cent.
I believe those figures are most encouraging. They show conclusively that in the grammar schools, where the problem is largely concentrated, the percentage of pupils leaving at various ages below 18-plus is diminishing and, conversely, the percentage of pupils remaining at school beyond 16 is increasing. I think it is agreed that we should strive for even better results, and to that end the Central Advisory Council put forward many excellent recommendations in its Report.
Those recommendations are in the Report, and I do not propose to explain them to the House in this debate. The majority are proposals for consideration and action by local authorities, by schools themselves and, in some cases, by employers and trade unions. My right hon. Friend hopes that wherever possible consideration will already have been given to those suggestions, as the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) mentioned, but there are considerations, such as the extension of family allowances and the revision of maintenance allowances, which are dependent upon Government action.
There have already been many discussions with representatives of local authorities and with the teachers on maintenance


allowances. Further discussions are to take place very shortly with the main object of seeing whether the money now being spent is being spent to the best advantage and is giving help where it is most needed.
It is against that sort of background that we look at the school-life agreement. Perhaps before I deal finally with that specific point, I should say that more than the constructive proposals in this Report and more than the effect of the school-life agreement, the principal requirement in the whole of this problem of early leaving is a change in the attitude of some parents. The task of persuading fathers and mothers to see the immense long-term advantage of acceding to the suggestion of teachers that a child should remain longer at school is something in which all hon. Members can help.
I wish to say a few words about the school-life agreement, the subject of this discussion. It is a suggestion which the Council has not found itself able to recommend for general adoption. According to my information, since 1945, when school fees were abolished, a Section providing for these agreements and imposing a penalty not exceeding £10 has been included in 23 local Acts. I note that in the Gloucestershire proposal the number is given as 25, but I shall not dispute that small difference. The first was in 1946, in the case of Manchester, and the latest—Liverpool—in 1955. A similar Clause was contained in three other Bills but was withdrawn or disallowed by the House, mainly, I think, on account of the opposition of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, who has moved this Motion. There are three other Bills still before Parliament, and three others, presented only last month, which contain a similar Clause. This debate, therefore, is of some importance to these other Bills.
It is clear from these facts that a wide variety of authorities, of all types and all political persuasions, see some merit in the proposal, and consider that so long as the competition for grammar school places is as keen as it is, there are good grounds for giving preference to the children who are likely to stay the course.
On the other hand, as the Central Advisory Council noted, there is some reason—it has been brought out in this debate—to doubt the effectiveness of such agreements; but I can give the

House no evidence about the results achieved by individual authorities, although my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield) provided some evidence on the point.
It has been suggested in the debate that a school-life agreement is inconsistent with Section 8 of the 1944 Act, whereby the duty is imposed upon local authorities to provide education according to a child's age, aptitude and ability. It would, therefore, be open to a parent. to appeal against unreasonable exclusion or under a school attendance order, but it is a fact that no appeal has yet been made. That is evidence in support of the contention made by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) that authorities have used this power with discretion.
My right hon. Friend accepts the conclusions of the Advisory Council's Report as far as school-life agreements are concerned, and has no intention of taking any further general powers. He is not enthusiastic about school-life agreements, and would prefer to see further progress being made with the more positive proposals put forward. On the other hand, he appreciates that there may be local conditions which provide exceptions to this general approach. Indeed, that is contained in paragraph 61 of the Advisory's Council's Report, which states that there may be local exceptions to its general approach to this matter; and in this case there may be such an exception.
If, therefore, the Gloucestershire authority can prove to the satisfaction of hon. Members that there is special local need, the Clause will be justified. That is a matter which must be decided by hon. Members in the light of the arguments advanced and of my right hon. Friend's general attitude. It may be in this case that the Clause should be allowed to proceed to Commmittee for further consideration of the point.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Ede: For three mornings recently, I have sat opposite the Parliamentary Secretary and watched him preserving complete silence. I therefore congratulate him upon being able at last to find voice. This is a difficult matter to settle and I speak only for myself in anything I say, but I hope I carry all my hon. Friends on this side with me when I say


that our ultimate objective is a school-leaving age of 16. When the 1944 Act was going through the House, not with so much acclamation as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) said, this was one of the matters that was fiercely disputed.
I think it is safe to say that the Government of which I was then a member were wise in not making the school-leaving age 16 at that date. When one thinks of the trouble we have had to provide accommodation and teachers enough to raise the school-leaving age to 15, it is quite certain that to have made the age of 16 compulsory at that date would have resulted in a complete breakdown of the education for senior pupils at the present time. That does not, however, alter the fact that we believe it is the suitable thing for the compulsory school-leaving age to be raised to 16 as soon as opportunity and the provision of the service make it possible.
Until we get to that period, there will be difficulties for those schools which have a five-year secondary school course. That is the difficulty in this case. The secondary modern school, which has generally a four-year school course after 11, can provide a pupil with something that fully occupies his mind up to the age of 15. I think that some of those pupils would do even better if they took that four-year course over a period of five years, because not every child can proceed at the same pace as other members of the class.
We are left, however, with this problem, that while the compulsory school-leaving age is 15 a number of children will go into secondary schools which have a five-year course. I prefer that term to the term "grammar school," because a grammar school is unknown to the Education Act, 1944. The school with the five-year course—and I imagine that many of the technical schools which the Government now contemplate starting will be schools with a five-year course if they are to prepare their best pupils for the universities or technological colleges for really advanced work on that side of human development—will have some pupils who come in at 11 and leave at 15.
I have been a governor of several grammar schools and other schools having

a five-year course, and I know the problem presented by the child who comes in and occupies a place in the school for about four years and then leaves and tries to get a job on the strength of the allegation that he was a pupil of a grammar school or a school with a five-year course.
I want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne that I have great sympathy with the parent of limited means who keeps his child at school for the full five years. I am the son of such parents. There are many parents today who, in spite of education being free, are making great sacrifices to keep a child at school beyond the school-leaving age. I do not think that it is fair that that child's educational career should be belittled because children have left the same school without completing the course and have claimed that they are proper representatives of the school.

Mr. Hayman: Surely my right hon. Friend will agree that I have never said anything to suggest that I do not equally honour and respect those parents of limited means who keep their children at school. Of course I do.

Mr. Ede: I would not suggest that my hon. Friend had said so, but what I do say is that the sacrifice of these parents is entitled to be held in high honour by the whole of the community, and that it should not be thwarted because a boy or girl goes to an employer and says, "I come from such and such a school "and the employer says, "I had another one from there and I did not think much of him. "It is then found that that was a child who had not completed the course.
I regret some of the things that were said by the Parliamentary Secretary. I want to make a constructive suggestion. A child who is defective physically or mentally has a school-leaving age of 16, and the parent cannot take him away before he is 16. That was provided in Section 38 of the Education Act, 1944. I would have hoped that we might have had some such arrangement that where a child enters a five-year course and that course is approved by the Minister, the school-leaving age in such a school should be 16, in the same way as it is in the school for the defective.
But that would have to be followed up by having a set of maintenance allowances which would enable the parent


whose child reaches the age of 15 and who needs help to be helped by a maintenance grant arranged, as maintenance grants are now increasingly being arranged, on a national scale. We try to make university grants uniform no matter what educational authority may be granting them. I should have thought that in a similar way it would be possible to deal with this problem.
Frankly, I do not like school-life agreements of this type which provide for what is. after all, a derisory penalty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said, the parent takes his boy or girl away in defiance of the school-life undertaking and the maximum penalty that can be imposed is £10. Within three weeks or a month that child will have brought more into the home than the maximum amount of the penalty. Then one has the child who knows that his parents are making sacrifices to keep him at school and who says, "It is a shame that my father and mother should be making these sacrifices when the boy round the corner who is not as smart as I am, at any rate in my opinion, can go out and get a job which makes a substantial contribution to the home."
I am not at all sure from what I have heard when I have sat at quarter sessions that high wages for juveniles are not a greater contribution to juvenile delinquency than anything that happens inside a secondary or grammar school. One never hears now that they are tempted by poverty. Any barrister in the House would agree that the common form of defence now is, "This youth gets such big money that he has lost all sense of values, so please be kind to him for that reason."
I find it very difficult to make up my mind which way I shall vote on this matter, because, frankly, this is a problem which needs to be dealt with and I should prefer that a national system of maintenance grants should be established, having regard to the size of the family and the family income, and so on. I should prefer that where the child enters the five-year course, approved by the Minister—so that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne that some schools do not give such a very good course after all could be met—the school-leaving age for that child should be 16. The sooner we get people accustomed to the idea that 16 is the appro-

priate school-leaving age the better for the future of the education service and our supply of skilled craftsmen.
I do not think that the number of people who jib at this are so very many. I went to a secondary school in Middlesex a week ago tonight. There is a six-form entry there. Two forms are admitted for grammar, two for technical and two for general. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham knows the school to which I am alluding. For the first two years they carry on a common course. At the end of two years three of the forms are put on to the academic side instead of the two that were entered, and for those and the two technical forms (leaving only one general form ultimately) the parents are interviewed. They enter willingly into the undertaking, which is hardly ever broken.
I am certain that the schools themselves have a great deal to do in this matter. Having regard to the heavy task of the Minister if we are to get a really technically educated range of pupils in our schools, I hope he will feel that he can take some steps to make it quite plain that we cannot expect to get a good academic or technical secondary education with less than a five-year course.
With regard to the 20 per cent. of pupils who do not benefit from secondary education, again I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham. I do not regard as the sole test of the success of education the examination which a child can pass. If, however, a child is not pulling his weight and is obviously a misfit, there should be arrangements by which he can be transferred to a school into which he can fit.
It would be most discouraging to local education authorities if this Clause were defeated. I do not think it is the best way of dealing with the matter, but it is a way, and I hope that within the next year the Minister will be able to find some way of seeing that, not penalties, but an appropriate power is given to the secondary school, whether grammar or technical, which has a five-year course.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the rather wider spheres through which, with


his great experience, he has just been travelling. He has underlined the importance of this question. It is certain that no education authority, and no council worthy of the duties laid upon it, should neglect any means in its power to halt and to diminish early school-leaving.
It is calculated that every school place after the age of 16 costs £92 in Gloucestershire, and as we are dealing with annual figures of the order of 250, it will be seen that the education authority, as in duty-bound, is considering a loss to the community of about £25,000 a year. So, clearly, it is their duty to concentrate as best they may on this difficult question.
It has been said, and I associate myself with those remarks, that the effect on boys and girls who leave school early is, on the one hand, to waste the education they have had to some extent and, on the other, to stop others receiving education in the grammar and techncial schools who might have had it. Whatever may be the position in other parts of the country, in Stroud the pressure on those schools is extreme, and there is severe competition to enter them because of the expanding population in the area. It would be sad if the education authority did not do all it could to ensure that all the places were taken up and fully used.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) said it might be that the rights of children to secondary education were being whittled away, but if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Cor-field) is right in saying that in only three cases have parents refused, the problem does not appear to be very severe. The children whose rights are being whittled away are not those whose parents have refused to sign but those who have left before they should have done, and they are whittling away their own rights and preventing other children from occupying places in the classes.
Reference has been made to paragraph 60 of the Central Advisory Council's Report on Early Leaving, which says:
From the school's point of view, their staying is as likely to unsettle the other boys and girls as their leaving; from their own point of view it will seem that boys and girls who have not been at grammar schools are getting a year's start in their job.

That is put forward as an argument against the Clause, but surely no one contemplates that the penalty, if it is a penalty, of £10 will be exacted from a boy or girl who is unsuitable for the school. The Clause is entirely permissive; the county council need not exact the full £10, and it need not exact anything.
Paragraph 61 says:
We are conscious that in these paragraphs we are writing in very general terms. The difficulties we see are not necessarily decisive in every separate area; and if a local education authority finds that its arrangements for making and enforcing agreements work well it would be wrong to interfere with them.
I am certain that education authorities would always take account of conscientious objection to signing, and the sincerity of parents who refused to sign would be an additional argument in favour of the penalty not being exacted from them.

Mr. Charles Pannell: If the parents did not sign, the children would not be at the school.

Mr. Kershaw: If our figures are correct, that has never happened.

Mr. Pannell: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's experience in this matter is, but I can speak as one who has been the chairman of an authority for many years. The form is put before the parent, and if the parent does not sign the boy does not go to the school. As to the cognisance which is taken of the conscientious parent, all the authority says is, "You are out." That point is very well made in the Report. If a parent insisted on his right to the contrary, undefined legal consequences would arise.

Mr. Philips Price: Perhaps I might point out that I know that in the case of Gloucestershire a headmaster or governor interviewing a parent who had a conscientious objection to signing, would, if he found real conscientious objection, send the child to the school without the agreement being signed.

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) was not present earlier when we were discussing the question he put to me. As the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) has said, there has never been an exclusion of a child of a parent with a conscientious objection to signing. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, the


legal difficulties have never arisen and are never likely to arise.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that further education is one of the most important things for the country at present, and that all classes should share in it. It is disturbing to read in the Report that the number of boys and girls from unskilled and semi-skilled households who are leaving is far above that in other categories. It is said that out of 16,000 children who go to grammar schools from unskilled and semi-skilled households, no fewer than 9,000 fail to complete the course.
No one will suggest that the Clause will have an effect upon that type of household greater than its effect on any other. It has been said with justice that the Clause is more a reminder of obligations than a financial penalty of any size and that within a week or so any boy or girl ought to be able to make up the loss caused to his parents.

Mr. Hayman: Will the hon. Member not agree that it is precisely in those homes of the unskilled parent where there is very little opportunity for study, and that that makes it extremely difficult for children to continue their studies, quite apart from the tradition which, naturally, is not as strong as in professional homes or those of qualified artisans?

Mr. Kershaw: I entirely agree. It is, of course, the absence of privacy, and so on, which has its effect. Nevertheless, the problem remains and anything that can be done to ensure that they will stay on at school and benefit from a grammar school education for which they are fitted—otherwise, they would never be there in the first place—should command the attention of the House.
The financial penalty should be kept small. It is odd for the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) to say, on the one hand, that he dislikes the penalty—one might have sympathy with that, because the word "penalty" is somewhat disagreeable—and, on the other, to say that it is not worth talking about. It should not be a harsh penalty, but merely serve to bring home to parents the importance of the education their child is receiving.
Furthermore, let it not be thought that it is the only thing which the Gloucester-

shire County Council is doing to ensure that children stay at school. We have been discussing only a narrow point, but other things are being done by the county council. If the Clause is rejected—and the county council can operate it and I am sure it will operate it in a sensible and merciful manner—hardship will be inflicted on many children in Gloucestershire. That hardship will fall not only on the children who leave early and who will later discover their loss, but also on those whom they are keeping out of their places.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter (Sourhall): We should come back to the general principles upon which Private Bills are promoted. The usual practice is that a Private Bill is promoted to deal with specific things in a particular area which are not generally necessary or subject to general Acts of Parliament. Nothing has been said about this Clause, and no case has been made in any way by Gloucestershire, to indicate that Gloucestershire is in a position different from that of any other education authority. The Clause should stand or fall on whether there is an exceptional position and a particular reason for special legislation.
At the moment, it appears to me that the case is against Gloucestershire. The Gloucestershire figures on this question—and I am prepared to admit that it is a very vexed question—are very much the same, as is the experience of Gloucestershire, as those for the rest of the country. I claim to speak on the subject with some knowledge, because I was a governor of a grammar school before the war and, in the usual way, we had a penalty Clause. It was seldom enforced, and if any attempt was made to enforce it it had no effect.
We find very often that a much greater effect is achieved by a good talk to the parents by the headmaster on the general question of the desirability of leaving a child at school; and if there is any financial hardship, whether there are means by which it may be dealt with. That is a more positive approach and a method by which results may be achieved. This method will not have the effect of keeping one more child at school. It is an easy way to say that we will put in a penalty Clause and, if the child leaves school, impose a fine of £10.
The Central Advisory Council for Education came to exactly the same conclusion in this matter: that it is necessary to have positive methods rather than restrictive measures; and if that be so, then here we have no particular case. What has been said from the Government Front Bench seems to be an indication and an invitation to the House to adopt the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) and to reject this Clause. The Clause refers to secondary education. It may well become increasingly the case that five-year courses will be run in secondary modern schools for particular purposes and a parent may say that he would like his child to take the course. This penalty may apply not only in grammar schools, but in secondary schools where there is a specialist five-year course for relatively few students. That would be an intolerable position in which to place a parent or the school.
Within its boundaries Gloucestershire includes the City of Gloucester which is another educational authority and also within and adjoining Gloucestershire is the County Borough of Bristol. I have no doubt that reciprocal arrangements exist between the different authorities regarding grammar school places. That is usual. What will happen if one authority has a penalty Clause and the other has not and there are children from an area in which a penalty Clause is operated going to school with children from another area where it is not? All these are important factors which should be carefully thought out before these matters are brought before this House at all.
It seems to me that the whole weight of the evidence which we have, the official evidence from the Government Front Bench and the Central Advisory Council for Education, and the experience of hon. Members, shows that these penalty Clauses are not in themselves of any particular advantage in keeping children at school. It is no use arguing that we want to do something because of the waste of educational facilities which occurs. The penalty does not stop a child from leaving school. Let us therefore turn to more positive ways of keeping the children at school and thereby perhaps eliminate the waste.
I am told that in Gloucestershire if there is a person with a conscientious

objection to signing the agreement, he would be interviewed by a governor, and perhaps would not be required to sign it. What sort of a situation would result if that sort of thing became general? Were that the case, every parent would say they had a conscientious objection to signing the agreement, which would mean that it would not be worth the paper on which it was written. This method does not appear to present a solution. The whole of the evidence is against it. I hope that the House will accept the Motion and that we shall proceed to other and better means of achieving our purpose.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: I support the Motion moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman). I was rather disappointed with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I have always had a deep respect for his expert knowledge of education, but I have rarely heard a speech in which the evidence adduced was so much against the verdict, as he expressed it in the last few minutes of his speech, when he said that he was opposed to the deletion of the Clause from the Bill.
It is because of his speech that I am inspired to say one or two things upon this matter. Three hon. Members for Gloucestershire constituencies have spoken—the hon and gallant Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield), my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price), and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw)—and I commend them for their zeal. They all opposed the Motion on two grounds: first, that it was a very small penalty; and, secondly, that if the Clause were retained in the Bill the penalty, being small, would be imposed only on very rare occasions.
In that case, why should we be asked to approve the Clause? Why should we be troubled with a matter of this kind when every hon. Member knows that the imposition of such a penalty—whether it be £10, £20 or £30—will not have the slightest beneficial effect in encouraging children to remain at secondary modern or grammar schools until their last year?
I can tell the hon. Member for Stroud what it will do in his constituency and many others. The more honest the parents, the more the deterrent will operate against secondary education. I can imagine some agricultural worker and his wife looking at the terms of the school-life agreement and the wife saying to her husband, "This son of ours is keen to go to the grammar school, but suppose he slips up? Suppose his enthusiasm for grammar school education declines? Can we afford, in all honesty, to face the prospect of a penalty of £10?" I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne had the better of the argument when he said that the Clause would make Gloucestershire County Council complainant, prosecutor, judge and jury all in one. Of course, it would, because all the county court judge would be called upon to do would be to enforce the law, and the only measure of liberty he would have would be in regard to the terms under which the penalty was to be imposed.
I am very glad that the Central Advisory Council for Education has strongly opposed this principle, because it is an unreasonable condition of entry into a secondary modern or grammar school. Further, what is to be the limit if we accept the principle underlying the Clause? Should we penalise undergraduates who fail to complete their full course at a university? Are we to suggest to local government authorities that nurses who do not carry out the whole of their training courses, and whose training is at public expense, should have the principle applied to them? If they break their agreements because of getting married, or through some other condition which causes them to leave the service, are they to be penalised to the extent of £10, £20 or £30? Is it suggested that civil servants who break down in process of their training should be subject to a penalty?
If we are not suggesting that these things should happen, why inflict such a penalty upon a child? Not a single statement was made by any of the hon. Members representing Gloucestershire constituencies about any constructive proposal which the county education committee has put into operation with a view to improving the percentage of those who remain at grammar schools until they are 16 or over.
I was gratified when my right hon. Friend spoke about parity of esteem, but to get parity of esteem there must be no distinction in principle between a secondary modern and a grammar school. This proposal hives off the secondary modern from the grammar school and makes the differential even greater. I can see the time coming when we shall have a normal five-year course in the secondary modern school and the grammar school, with interchange of scholars between one school and the other. What is to happen if a Clause like this exists? Is it to apply to the grammar school and not to the secondary modern school?
This is a silly proposition and has no merit in it at all. It seems to have a musty ring about it, because this is the kind of penalty that some people like to impose upon someone else. The effect of it in the countryside, if it is adopted in Gloucestershire, will be to reduce the number of children of agricultural workers who go through grammar school to the university.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I am opposed to the Gloucestershire County Council having this power, on two grounds, which can be stated quite simply The former Minister of Education, the right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Dame Florence Horsbrugh), was greatly troubled about this problem of early leavers, so she submitted the matter for consideration to a body of expert educationists, the Central Advisory Council for Education, which included three professors and a large number of doctors in the field of education and not of medicine. They produced a long Report after giving the greatest care and attention to the problem. I notice that it cost the nation quite a large sum of money to prepare the Report.
It was a recommendation of that Council that this special power should not be given except in very exceptional circumstances. It was incumbent upon those representing Gloucestershire who have spoken here on behalf of the county council to show to this House that we ought to ignore the Report in the case of Gloucestershire because in Gloucestershire there were special circumstances. No Member has shown any special circumstance of any kind to exist in Gloucester-


shire, and no argument has been put forward that could not have been put forward generally on behalf of every authority from one end of the country to the other. It was that general proposition that this expert body rejected.
If there was a case, if Gloucestershire had very special problems—if, for example, the percentage of leavers was very high there as compared with other parts of the country—and if hon. Members from Gloucestershire had shown that they had followed carefully every recommendation made by the Council, such as those in regard to improving the intelligence of the continuation or secondary scholars, and that nothing remained for them to do but to come to this House and ask for this permission, I am sure that the House would have given it.
I have listened to most of the debate because I wanted to make up my mind, having read the Report, whether there was any special circumstance relating to Gloucestershire County Council. I have heard none, and therefore I think that the House should support the excellent recommendation, which was supported by the Parliamentary Secretary who, if I heard him aright said, "The Minister stands by this Report." The Minister thinks that the recommendation of this Council should be followed unless there are very special circumstances, which Gloucestershire should prove. We have heard of no special circumstances. Therefore, if I can read the Minister's mind, I say that he would not approve of this Clause in this case because no special circumstances have been proved.
My other argument is based on a personal experience. I was a manager of a school in a very poor neighbourhood in Liverpool. We had not many bright children but occasionally we had a product of genius, and I remember one such product who really was quite an amazing child. He was the son of a dock labourer who said that he could not afford to keep the child at school until the age of 16 or 17, and that he must go to work. Three of us tried to persuade him.
We spent a very long time and finally, after three visits, we persuaded the man to allow his child to go to the grammar school in Liverpool. If, in addition to trying to persuade him to take that course we had had to tell him, "If you do not

sign on the dotted line and keep your child at school for the full four years you will have to pay a penalty of £10,"I am sure that our work would have been wasted and that that child would have been deprived of his education.
We are legislating, not for the conscientious parents, but for the others. The conscientious parent, as we know, will always sacrifice himself for his child—otherwise I doubt whether many hon. Members would be present here. Though our parents may have been the poorest of the poor, there are very few among us who have been deprived of a secondary education because we were not allowed by our parents to stay at school for four years of secondary education.
If an expert body recognises that such a Clause as this should not be included except in very special circumstances, and unless we are legislating for very special circumstances in connection with particular children of parents who do not wish their children to have the advantages offered, I do implore the House not to give the Gloucestershire County Council a power which other education authorities manage quite well without.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: Some years ago my daughter came ninety-fourth in the entrance examination for ninety-three places at a secondary school, and, therefore, did not gain entrance. Subsequently, some of the children who beat her in the list did not complete the course. Their parents took the children away so that they might earn money on a trading estate. It might well have happened that my child would have been permanently denied the benefit of a grammar school education and eventually going to college.
It was just a matter of good fortune that twelve months after this group had started at that school illness caused the withdrawal of a child whose place my daughter secured. My child completed the course and went on to college, but it might well have been that by the action of a parent who thought more of what a child could earn than of its education my child and the children of others would have been excluded from grammar school training.
The consequence is that I will do anything in reason to deter parents from taking their children from secondary


schools before completing the course. I believe that we should take every reasonable positive step, and this penalty brings home forcibly to parents that when they sign on the dotted line it is a serious matter. I believe that we ought to give

SWANSEA CORPORATION (FAIR-WOOD COMMON) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read a Second time.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I rise with some diffidence to state shortly the case against the Bill as conceived by those who object to it. I say with some diffidence" because, being a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, I have to view these questions with some impartiality; and, secondly, being a Member for a Welsh constituency, I should hesitate to do anything which

the Gloucestershire County Council the powers it seeks.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 76.

Division No. 90.]
AYES
[9.50 p.m.


Allen, Scholefield (Crews)
Kenyon, C.
Popplewell, E.


Awbery, S. S.
Lawson, G. M.
Ross, William


Blyton, W. R.
Molnnes, J.
Skeffington, A. M.


Bowden, H. w. (Leicester, S.w.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Craddock, George (Bradford) S.)
Maddan, Martin
Stones, W. (Consett)


Deer, G.
Mahon, S.
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C>


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wilkins, W. A.


Grimond, J.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Willey, Frederick


Hannan, W.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Herbison Miss M.
Moyle, A.



Holmes, Horace
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Holt, A. F.
Pargiter. G. A.
Mr. Hayman and Mr. Royle


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Parker, J.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Gurden, Harold
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Armstrong, C. W.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Pott, H. P.


Ashton, H.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Baldwin, A. E.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.


Barber, Anthony
Hicks-Beach, MaJ. W. W.
Redmayne, M.


Body, R. F.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bryan, P.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Renton, D. L. M.


Champion, A. J.
Howard, John (Test)



Chichester-Clarke, R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Roper, Sir Harold


Cunningham, Knox
Keegan, D.
Russell, R. S.


Currie, G. B. H.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Speir, R. M.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H,
Kirk, P. M.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Duncan, Capt- J. A. L.
Lambton, Viscount
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J, C.
Leavey, J. A.
Studholme, H. C.


Errington, Sir Eric
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lloyd, MaJ. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)


Fleteher-Cooke, C.
Longden, Gilbert
Turner, H. F. L.


Freeth, D. K.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Glover, D.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Mathew, R.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Gower, H. R.
Mawby, R. L.



Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Green, A.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Captain Corfield and Mr. Kershaw


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Neave, Airey

might in any way be interpreted as likely to discourage the advance of civil aviation in Wales. Nevertheless, those who oppose the Bill have found it extremely difficult to present their views, and I deem it proper that those views should be heard by the House on Second Reading so that hon. Members, on both sides, may make up their minds on the merits of the case presented by the objectors. For the reasons I have stated. I shall abstain from voting.

The following are the reasons which have been given to me for the objections and opposition to the Bill. First, it is said by the objectors that some weeks ago the National Parks Commission gave public notice of its intention to designate


the whole of the Gower Peninsula as a conservation area. I am informed that the whole area of the Fairwood Common affected by the Bill is in that area, as those of us who are familiar with the district can confirm.

The objectors suggest that it is wrong that a duty placed by Parliament upon the National Parks Commission should be made impossible by any action which the people who support the Bill should seek to take at this stage. They point out too that in their view the Bill is inconsistent with the purposes of the National Parks Act, 1949, first because it would extinguish the rights of access, and, secondly, because it would enclose an open space and take powers over the surrounding countryside in what will be a conservation area.

The second objection stated by the objectors, which hon. Members may think has considerable validity, is that those who promote the Bill are well aware that a Royal Commission is at this very moment considering the whole question of common lands. They therefore suggest that it must strike hon. Members, on both sides of the House, as being right that the findings of that Royal Commission should be known before such a Bill as this, which would extinguish the rights of commoners, should pass into law. Surely, they say, the primary purpose of the Bill, having as its aim the extinguishment of common rights, should await the findings of the Royal Commission.

The objectors' third major objection is based upon the needs of agriculture and of open space and the need of a green belt around towns such as Swansea. In this connection, they stress that they have the support of the National Farmers' Union for the County of Glamorgan. I have been sent a copy of a resolution, which was passed by the executive committee of the Glamorgan branch of the National Farmers' Union on 10th January this year. It reads as follows:
The County Executive Committee of the Glamorgan Branch of the National Farmers' Union recommends that consideration of the Swansea Corporation (Fairwood Common) Bill which seeks to extinguish common rights on Fairwood Common for the erection of an aerodrome, be deferred, pending the publication of a report of the Royal Commission on Common Land, which is now sitting.

To my knowledge the Glamorgan branch of the National Farmers' Union has about

3,000 members, and that may be deemed by Members on both sides of the House to be evidence that the objections to the immediate passing of this Bill would not appear to be confined to the protection society which formulated the objections supplied to me.

Mr. David Grenfell: Can the hon. Member say whether any of the 3,000 members of the Farmers' Union, or the other people who have communicated with him, reside either in the Gower Division or the Swansea Division?

Mr. Gower: I am sorry that I cannot give the information for which the Father of the House has asked. All that I can say is that I have been advised of this resolution, which was passed by the executive.

Mr. Grenfell: Has the hon. Member checked up before he announced it to this House?

Mr. Gower: In reply to that, I concede to what the Father of the House has suggested, that obviously these farmers are living all over the County of Glamorgan and they are not necessarily living in the peninsula of Gower. It may be that none live in that area. Nevertheless, the farmers of the Gower Peninsula are represented on the Glamorgan county executive of the N.F.U.
The fourth objection which has been conveyed to me is based upon the financial aspect of this question. I am told that as recently as October last the Welsh Advisory Council for Civil Aviation was having to seek additional Exchequer aid to maintain the existing airfields in the Principality. It is suggested by the objectors to the Bill that it might be deemed unwise for the Swansea Corporation, in these circumstances and at this stage, to go ahead with the construction of yet another airfield when it would appear that the airfields already existing in the area might be deemed adequate.
I have to confess a constituency interest in that the major South Wales aerodrome is at Rhoose in my constituency. The objectors suggest to me that it would be better for the money available to be devoted to the improvement and enlargement of the airfield at Rhoose.

Mr. Grenfell: Is the hon. Member in favour of an aerodrome at Rhoose and against one at Gower?

Mr. Gower: I am merely stating the views expressed to me by the objectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay), who will speak later, will doubtlessly enlarge upon these views. As I said in opening, I think it proper that the House should be aware that there is a body of people who hold these views. They have organised themselves into a body called the Fairwood Common Protection Society. I am advised that those who sponsored the present Bill have described the objectors as an irresponsible body, and have used the term "a body of cranks" and other such expressions. The objectors quote the obvious support which they have from the farmers in the county.
It is for the House to decide this matter, and I hope that the House will not deem it irresponsible or wrong of me to express these views which have been conveyed to me from these people. That is all I have to say, and I thank the House for according me the indulgence of listening to those views as conveyed to me.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Graeme Finlay: Far be it from me to interfere in matters affecting West Wales, but I wish to speak briefly on the aspects of the Bill which strike me as of national significance. This area in which land has been selected by Swansea Corporation for the purposes of an aerodrome is undoubtedly an area selected by the National Parks authorities as a conservation area. That means that it is an area which, as a result of the policy of Parliament, must be subject to very special treatment. It has been selected because of its character, and nobody knows better than the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), the scenic beauties of the area. It is particularly sacrosanct.
It is land which the Legislature has deliberately decided should be very carefully watched in the interests of scenic beauty and of people who wish to use it to obtain the benefits of open air and exercise. One reads with astonishment, therefore, the views of Swansea Corporation that this is
a stretch of boggy, low-lying land of little scenic value.
If that is the case, one is struck with astonishment that it has been selected for conservation.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Could the hon. Member give us his personal opinion about this area?

Hon. Members: Does he know it?

Mr. Finlay: Indeed I know the Gower Peninsula very well. Hon. Members should be careful before asking me such a question.

Mr. Grenfell: What is the altitude of the highest point at this proposed aerodrome?

Mr. Finlay: I have not the slightest idea, and I do not think there is any reason why I should know. All I do know is that an aerodrome is not necessarily a thing of beauty and a joy for ever. One has to have buildings from which an aerodrome is administered and from which navigational facilities are offered, and runways have to be constructed. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Gower thinks that these things are very beautiful.

Mr. Grenfell: They are there already.

Mr. Finlay: I know, but the Father of the House has neglected to inform the House why they are there. They came to be there as a result of the activities of the Royal Air Force during the war and were constructed under Defence Regulations.

Mr. Grenfell: Twenty years ago.

Mr. Finlay: Yes, but I should be surprised if the Father of the House, whom I should have thought would be one of the chief protectors of scenic amenities in the area, should think that an aerodrome established under war-time conditions should be continued in use indefinitely.
Arrangements have been made for the protection of this area. The planning authority has been consulted and has taken the advice of an advisory body under the National Parks Act, because there are all sorts of things that are required to be done. There must be arrangements for the control of advertising and for seeing that unsightly telegraph poles are not installed there. All these matters should be looked into.
There is a second aspect of the subject. The Government of the day have appointed a Royal Commission. To make


quite sure that the terms of reference are appreciated I will read them. They are as follows:
To recommend what changes, if any, are desirable in the law relating to common land in order to promote the benefit of those holding manorial and common rights, the enjoyment of the public, or, where at present little or no use is made of such land, its use for some other desirable purpose.

Mr. Grenfell: May we have the date, please?

Mr. Finlay: The first announcement was made in July, 1955, and the Chairman, Sir William Ivor Jennings, was appointed on 25th October.

Mr. Grenfell: After the Bill was proposed?

Mr. Finlay: The intention of the Government in appointing the Royal Commission in July last year was abundantly clear, but the Swansea Corporation is coming to this House——

Mr. Grenfell: The corporation has been to the House of Lords.

Mr. Finlay: Well, it is coming now to the House of Commons, knowing full well, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, that this Royal Commission has been appointed with the specific object of ascertaining what should be done with these common rights. In consequence there arises here an issue of national principle.
What is the purpose of Parliament appointing such a Royal Commission if local authorities are to be entitled to anticipate its conclusions and bring in Private Bills altering the law? That is something for the House to consider. Having said that, I will say no more. I have no local interest in this matter. I have been approached by local people who are concerned to see that these issues of national principle are brought before the House, and I will leave them to the House to judge.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Percy Morris: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has just given us the most classic illustration of an hon. Member talking with his tongue in his cheek that I have known since I have been a Member of this House. The hon. Gentleman rose in his place and said, in effect, "I have no objection to this Bill and, as P.P.S. to the Ministry, I hope it will go through, but I am willing

to be the mouthpiece of people who have submitted an objection and I think that their views should be heard." That is a factual statement of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Gower: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt?

Mr. Morris: As for the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay), I am certain that if he had a greater appreciation of the Gower Peninsula, he would not be pressing his objection tonight.
I want to make it clear, however, that we do not resent the point of view being expressed. It is only right that people who have a fear that common lands are being interfered with should try to take steps to prevent that happening, but that is not the case so far as we are concerned, and there are three or four points to which I wish to reply in order to dispose of the criticism made by those hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Gower: On a point of order——

Mr. Morris: I will not give way.

Mr. Gower: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Gentleman:s constantly referring to me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Is it not right——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Order, order. If the hon. Member in possession of the House does not give way, the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) must remain silent.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Member must not be so sensitive. He is responsible for what he said and I am replying to it. The hon. Member for Epping expressed certain points of view on which I would like to make some observations——

Mr. Douglas Glover: Further to that point of order——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. There is no point of order arising on that.

Mr. Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. When doubt is cast on the sincerity of an hon. Member of this House by another hon. Member, has he not the right to justify himself?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not understand that any such reflection was cast on the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), and if the hon. Member in possession of the House does not give way, other hon. Members must retain their seats.

Mr. Morris: The National Parks Commission is not involved in this area, and whatever criticism or suggestion it might make would not affect this spot, which has been rightly described as boggy and peaty land. Because of that, the Air Ministry had to spend over £2 million before it could make it an appropriate site for an aerodrome.

Mr. Finlay: If that money has been spent, presumably making it unboggy so that aircraft can navigate there, it is not in the state in which it is contended to be in the document sent by the promoters of the Bill.

Mr. Morris: Recently, I was the guest of the South Gower Farmers' Association, and not one of them raised a protest against this recommendation to maintain the aerodrome.
I think I can best assist the House if I submit a factual statement not depending upon any other art at all. The Bill is promoted by Swansea Corporation. The area which is the object of the Bill is situated in the Gower Peninsula, southwest of Swansea. It is called Fairwood Common. It is part of the constituency represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), the Father of the House, and he shares our hope that the House will approve the Measure.
The Common is 1,382 acres in size. Of those 1,382 acres, the corporation is the lord of the manor, as a result of a gift before the war, of 1,122 acres. The Bill is concerned with only 267 of those acres. The figures which I have quoted merit serious attention. They show that the council ask leave to use a comparatively small part of the Common. It is roughly half the area requisitioned by the Government during the war. Commoners' rights have not been exercised there for 16 years.
Nobody disputes that we need an aerodrome. We have a population of 162,000. Vast industries are located in the Swansea area; there is the huge Margam Abbey steelworks on the eastern side and the cold reduction plant at Trostre on the western side and on the northern boundary the Velindre Works are under construction. I.C.I, has extensive factories in Swansea. In addition, steel and tinplate, aluminium and other metals are produced in large quantities. The town is the shopping and commercial

centre of a population of no less than 300,000.
In 1938, the council instructed Messrs. Norman Muntz and Dawbarn, an eminent firm of aeronautical consultants, to make a survey of the area and report on the most suitable site on which to construct an aerodrome. The firm advised that one of the two most suitable sites was that situated at Fairwood Common. The other site was used for housing purposes, and we would not interrupt work of that kind.
The outbreak of war prevented the council from implementing the report, but it gave the Air Ministry its opportunity. In 1940, the Air Ministry requisitioned 568 acres of the area owned by the corporation, and nearly £2 million of public money was spent in building an aerodrome which was very active during the war and proved a great national asset.
The council takes the view that it would be lacking in initiative and enterprise if it did not take the opportunity that presents itself to provide air transport services for such a rapidly developing community. The aerodrome is there to be used, and I am advised that the condition of the runways is excellent. It is the intention of the corporation to engage a company of very wide experience, Cambrian Airways, to maintain and operate the services there.
Hon. and right hon. Members are entitled to ask what the objections are. Three authorities are involved: first, the Glamorgan County Council, a large and influential body, which is the planning authority concerned; secondly, the Gower Rural District Council, in whose area the land is situated; and, thirdly, the Gower Society, a voluntary body which came into being primarily to protect the amenities of Gower. These bodies were represented by eminent counsel when the Measure was discussed in another place. After frank and amicable discussion, the guarantees sought were given, objections were withdrawn, and complete agreement was reached. We now have the blessing of the three authorities concerned.
An unofficial group describing itself as the Gower Protection Society, a splinter organisation for which two hon. Members opposite have been spokesmen this evening, has refused to accept the assur-


ances of the bodies concerned and has circulated a document which is a complete travesty of the actual position and has maintained a blind and stubborn opposition to the expressed will of the people.
My council—I use the possessive term, because I have been a member of it since November, 1927, and have the honour to serve as its mayor this year—would not willingly countenance any proposal or scheme that would disturb the amenities of Gower. We have a proper appreciation of the beauties of the peninsula and we are satisfied that the operation of the aerodrome will not impair its attractiveness. I fully appreciate the desire to avert that possibility. The council has already given assurance that nothing will be done that would destroy the scenic beauty of the area.
The sooner the aerodrome is used the better, because since flying has ceased the public has been making improper use of the aerodrome. All sorts of vehicles use the runway. Damage has been done to buildings and it is rapidly acquiring the appearance of a derelict area. Operation of the aerodrome will effect a very much needed tidying of the whole site. Construction of a fence around the area will segregate the aerodrome from the remainder of the common and I most strongly emphasise that there will be no interference with legitimate use of the common.
If the Bill is given a Second Reading, Swansea Council will be enabled to improve the appearance and amenities of the area and, at the same time, provide a modern air transport service. I am glad to see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation in his place and I feel very confident that he will not contradict me if I say that it will afford him and his Department much pleasure if the Bill is given a Second Reading. The Bill represents the unanimous view of 60 Members of the county borough council including very loyal members of the party opposite. They will be not only distressed, but very surprised if it became possible tonight as a result of the debate for us to be deprived of providing that part of South-West Wales with modern air facilities.
I have endeavoured to be strictly factual. With that end in view I have

confined myself to notes. I hope that hon. Members opposite, in view of the explanation I have given and the assurances that nothing will be done in any way to spoil Gower, and that we shall share their anxiety to maintain its beauty and do everything possible, as we have done hitherto, will find it possible not to press matters to a Division.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. David Grenfell: I feel that I should identify myself with the Bill. It affects the larger part of my constituency which I have now represented for 33 years. I know the overwhelming majority of the people there. I know what they think and what they say about this project. There is no specific, tangible opposition anywhere in the Gower division, I have not heard a single word of protest and I do not know a single person in Gower who will openly say that he is opposed to this.
I understand that letters have been sent to hon. Members saying that I have not consulted my constituents on this matter. Nobody who knows Gower and me would think that an hon. Member could stop his constituents from talking to each other, or stop direct communication between him and the majority of the people there. In the Gower division, there is no opposition to the Bill worth mentioning. Why do we want to support the Bill? Why do I, as a Member of Parliament, support it? It is because this aerodrome has been a serviceable aerodrome since 1939.
During the war the very thorough preparations for national defence went on there. I live within a mile and a half of the runways; close enough to walk there at any time. I have been there hundreds of times in the last ten or fifteen years to see how things were going on. If anything has made me proud of the national genius, patriotism and talent of our people in all walks of life it is the way in which that aerodrome came into existence. It gave great service in 1940 and 1941—so much that it cannot be computed.
I came to know many of the flying men of that time, including the brothers Atcherley. Who has not heard of them? They served at that aerodrome constantly. There were many large industrial works and much shipping in the vicinity, together with a large population, but we remained almost immune from air attacks for two or three years because of the


preparations which had already been made.
I have a fondness for the air. Apart from the "pukka" flying men, I have probably flown as many miles as any other hon. Member. I admire immensely the men who have built up and are still building up our wonderful technical skill in flying. There has been a revolution in the habits of our people, and air travel facilities are now being made increasingly available. Yet what would have remained to serve this island, and what would there be to serve the Britons of tomorrow and the next twenty years, if we had not got in early and built up our own air force and trained our own men on our own land?
The Minister knows my interest in this matter. I do not claim any special credit for that. I was a wicked lad, fond of adventure, but I had the good sense to see that in an island like this we cannot afford to be behind in technical progress. We must know as much as anybody else. We have to have our eyes and hands trained for service above 10,000 and 20,000 feet in the air, and we cannot do that without aerodromes. I do not know of anything which has been of more value to the safety, security, comfort and contentment of our people than the preparation of these airports.
The aerodrome came to Swansea because of its location. It would not have come to the moors of Yorkshire, or anywhere like that. It came in wartime because there were special gateways to be guarded and special service to be rendered from that centre. Within a radius of 100 miles of the aerodrome amazing deeds were performed in the air. All we ask now is that this House should give its special sanction to what has become a fact—a proud fact in the lives of the people of Swansea, Wales, and the rest of the island. Airmen from all over the world speak with affection of the time they spent at Fairwood Aerodrome, during the war.
I think I can say that I represent the people of Gower. I know more people in Gower than anybody else. I know them by their Christian names, and they call me Dai, or David. They are not political quacks, or nationalist quacks, who write nonsense in the newspapers; they are people who go on living quietly, doing their jobs—and I claim to be one

of them. I urge the House not to miss this opportunity of doing the best job it can do in this matter. This area is not a swamp. The highest point of this aerodrome is about 350 feet above sea level. It has the advantage that there is nothing higher than itself. It lies on a natural ridge not far from the Bristol Channel and is easily accessible from everywhere.
The men at the aerodrome are very proud of it and those of us who live in the vicinity are very glad that we have been able to see the prowess and the remarkable strength of Britain in the air, and the training of our men to fly. They have seen flying taking place from their boyhood and are accustomed to it and to the evolution of flying machines. I therefore ask the House to give its sanction and its blessing to the work that is being done.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Glover: I little thought, when this debate began, that I should take part in it. I fully support the speeches of the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) and the Father of the House the right hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell). I am sure that when the hon. Member for Swansea, West thinks about this matter he will realise that what he said in the early part of his speech was unworthy of him.
While we support these developments we must not complain that the views of a minority are put forward in the House. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) made it clear that he was trying to put forward their views and it was a little unworthy of the hon. Member to criticise his motives, which were sincere. He made it clear that he was putting the views of a minority which many of those who have listened to the debate would support 100 per cent. We have no intention of making difficulties, but we have been impressed with the arguments put forward. I wish the hon. Member for Swansea, West had not started his speech the way he did.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: I rise to support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) and to ask for the Second Reading of the Bill. It is important, desirable and necessary that


municipalities should have aerodromes so that we may proceed rapidly from place to place by the modem method of transport, the air.
This project of the Swansea Corporation is perfectly sound and good, but I want the Minister to tell us whether the corporation, after it has spent £15,000 or £100,000 to establish the aerodrome, will not find itself in the same position as the municipality in my constituency. Having spent £53,000 in this way, it now has to spend £3,000 a year in care and maintenance, not because of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, but because the Treasury, through the Department of Customs and Excise, refuses to do what is right and proper so that the aerodrome might function. It is ridiculous for the Minister to urge the Second Reading of the Bill if Swansea Corporation is to find itself thwarted by the Treasury.
Let me tell the House what I tried to tell it yesterday. My authority has an aerodrome, and no doubt we shall be flying from it soon.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are dealing with one particular aerodrome.

Mr. Jones: I am trying to point out that when Fairwood Common has been established as a civil aerodrome, we shall no doubt be running services from Greetham to that Common.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be so, but it does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. Jones: I think it does, because, when enacted, this Bill will authorise the establishment of an aerodrome at Fairwood Common. I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will assure us that the Swansea Corporation will receive from the Treasury better treatment in regard to this aerodrome than we in the North-East have received in regard to ours.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. D. L. Mort: I have listened with great pleasure to the arguments put forward from both sides. I am prepared to give full credit for honesty of purpose to those who are opposing this Bill, but hon. Members should realise the actual position. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) spoke of the erection of an aerodrome, but it is not a question of erecting one. Does any hon. Member suggest that the

Swansea Corporation should allow this aerodrome to fall into disuse, in face of the demand now made everywhere by progressive elements for the establishment of aerodromes in all industrial places?
There is no local opposition to this scheme, and I wonder if those who have spoken of the loss of the people's rights and about loss of amenities really know the local situation. The aerodrome does not affect the farming community at all to its disadvantage. This is a wonderful opportunity, and in these days of the credit squeeze and the restriction of capital expenditure, I am sure the House should be very pleased that at least one area can adapt itself to modern conditions and requirements without incurring huge expense. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) has said, we have blessed memories of this place. I sincerely hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading so that we can continue the noble work we have started.

10.43 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): I rise with some diffidence to speak on a matter which is primarily Welsh. The controversy over this Bill centres around a local issue—the issue of whether the commoners and the amenities of Fairwood Common should be made to suffer in the interests of developing an aerodrome. This being a Private Bill, I am not speaking on behalf of the promoters in the same sense that one speaks on behalf of a Departmental Bill, and I am sure that the House will appreciate the rather special conditions in which I am intervening. As evidence of this, if there is a vote—and I hope that there will not be shall not take part in it, but I feel that it would be wrong not to take the opportunity of saying something about the aspects of the proposals as they affect Welsh aviation.
Since I have been in this Department, representations have frequently been made about the importance of developing civil air transport in the Principality. I have myself been there and have visited this aerodrome. There is undoubtedly a demand for services through Swansea, but I must make it plain that these aspirations cannot be achieved unless and until the aerodrome is properly enclosed and made safe for transport aircraft.
Several applications have already been made for serving Swansea. Some have been approved and some are still before the Air Transport Advisory Council. One of them would seek to link Haverford-west with Swansea, Cardiff and/or Bristol, and, eventually, with London. I must make it clear that the operators are not likely to proceed with this operation or others, nor is my Department in a position to authorise the use of Fairwood Common for a regular passenger service without proper arrangements being made for the control of livestock at present allowed to wander at will over what is intended to be the airport.
I must admit that the initiative of Swansea Corporation in seeking to provide on their own account an aerodrome to make these services possible is welcome as far as I personally am concerned, even if this aerodrome has to operate without Customs facilities. So far as I can see, there is no intention of riding roughshod over the rights and requirements of the commoners because, among other things, the Bill provides for compensation.
With reference to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) about agricultural facilities, the information I have is that, even if the Bill went through in its present form, there would still be enough grazing land for the purpose of the stock at present being grazed there. Two points were made by hon. Friends, and I am glad they have spoken as they did in order that both sides of the case should be presented. One was with reference to the National Parks. There is a proposal, as has been said, to designate the Gower Peninsula, including Fairwood Common, under the National Parks Act. I understand the whole area has been designated

under the Act as a place of outstanding beauty. That means that if it is proposed to change the existing use of the area or any part of it the National Parks Commission must be consulted. The Commission knows all about the existence of this aerodrome and has no objection to its continuance.
The other point was about the Royal Commission sitting on the question of commons. That relates to the general law and this Bill is concerned with a particular case. Consideration of its merits by Parliament should not be affected by the fact that a Royal Commission is sitting.
I do not want to be controversial and the time is getting late. I submit that, in the light of what has been said tonight, it would be a great mistake for the House to reject the Measure at this stage. The right action is to send the Bill upstairs to Committee for full and careful consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

ADJOURNMENT

Postponed Proceeding on Question, That this House do now adjourn, resumed:—

Question again proposed:—

It being after Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.